2 MC-P ARGUMENT OUTLINING

Transcription

1 2 MC-P ARGUMENT OUTLINING Now that you understand a bit about how premises combine to make an argument, we are ready to take the next step: creating argument outlines (also called argument diagrams). This chapter will teach you how to understand accurately an argument by converting the argument into an argument-outline. If you are wondering, why this is necessary? Simply take a moment and think about how often an argument made by you was then misinterpreted, distorted, or changed by someone else. Of course, it also happens that we misinterpret the argument of someone else too. When another person fundamentally misunderstands the argument of another, it is probably a waste of time for him or her to listen to their criticisms or agreement of their argument. Right? Since we don t wish to waste time, critical thinkers take extra care to ensure that we understand exactly the argument that another is presenting before criticizing or agreeing with it. If you do not understand or grasp another person or group s argument, then you cannot legitimately criticize or agree with their argument. This attitude is sometimes called the principle of fidelity and both paraphrasing and argument outlining can help us achieve the principle of fidelity: our commitment to pay careful attention to an argument such that we are able to accurately restate the argument in our own words or accurately reconstruct the argument using a method such as argument outlining or diagramming. Below I discuss the MC-P outlining or diagramming method used to reconstruct another s argument. Diagramming is crucial because it not only shows that one understands the claims in an argument, diagramming also shows that one understands the author s intended reasoning strategy and logical relation between claims. When reconstructing another s argument the first step is deciding which claims to omit; the next step is to paraphrase unclear or grammatically incorrect claims; the third step is to create a diagram or outline of the argument that shows both the claims as well as the logical relationship between the claims. Your outline may also include unstated but implied claims needed to make the logical relations clear and persuasive. Do not, however, insert unstated claims that are not implied by what the author has stated. 2.1 SYMBOLS USED IN ARGUMENT OUTLINES The following three symbols are used when creating an argument outline: MC, P/SC, and P. MC stands for Main Conclusion, P/SC stands for Premise/Sub-conclusion, and P stands for basic Premise. Each claim in the argument outline is preceded by one and only one of these three symbols. These three symbols are defined below: MC = MAIN CONCLUSION A Main Conclusion is the final conclusion in an argument that attempts to resolve a given issue. The main conclusion is the ultimate claim which the arguer wishes you to believe or do. The main conclusion is the ultimate position, belief, or action that the argument or arguer wishes you to believe. A main conclusion must also have premises that are intended to lead you to believe that the main conclusion is true. This means that if you just have one claim sitting there all alone it cannot be a conclusion. 2-1

2 Location in Argument Outline: The main conclusion is placed at the top left of your outline. All other argument claims are located beneath and at least one indent unit to the right of the MC P= BASIC PREMISE A basic premise is any claim in the argument that: 1) supports or leads one to believe a conclusion claim, and 2) is not supported by any claims. Basic premises include claims such as axioms, self-evident premises, selfevident truths, fundamental assumptions, etc. Think of basic premises as the foundation of your arguments these are premises for which no further support is given yet they directly support either sub-conclusions or main conclusions. In fact, the only premises that are not also sub-conclusions are basic premises. Thus they should be the strongest in terms of truth-value because if the basic premises are false, then the sub-conclusions, even if based upon valid inferences from supposedly true (but actually false) basic premises, will be unsupported. In fact, the entire argument that is based on basic premises will be unsound or bad if the basic premises are false. You can think of this situation as resembling a domino-like effect in which all the higher-level sub-conclusions and main conclusion are knocked down if directly or indirectly based upon false basic premises. Basic premises are given the notation, P when we diagram arguments. Location in Argument Outline: Basic premises will always be placed beneath and one indent unit to the right of the P/SC or MC that they are supporting. TIP: To efficiently critique another s argument first check out the basic premises. If these are doubtful or false, then the entire argument is likely to fail as well. Beginning your evaluation of arguments with basic premises is an efficient, timesaving strategy for evaluating arguments P/SC= PREMISE/SUB-CONCLUSION A Premise/Sub-Conclusion is both a conclusion and premise claim at the same time. The premise/subconclusion is both a conclusion that is supported by one or more premise claims (P, P/SC, or a combination of Ps and P/SCs) and simultaneously serves as a premise in support of another premise/sub-conclusion or the main conclusion. Premise/Sub-conclusions will be given the symbol P/SC in our argument diagrams. Keep in mind that what we call a premise may be either a P/SC or a basic premise. Also keep in mind that what we call a conclusion may be either a MC or a P/SC. Location in Argument Outline: P/SCs are placed beneath and one indent unit to the right of the P/SC or MC that they are supporting. Here is an example of a premise/sub-conclusion in an argument: Limit yourself to one hour of TV a day because TV causes mild depression because numerous studies have shown that after more than one hour of TV, people report higher levels of unhappiness and increased apathy. Here the sub-conclusion is TV causes mild depression because this is a premise that directly supports the main conclusion but also serves as a sub-conclusion for the basic premise, Numerous studies have shown 2-2

3 2.2 INDICATOR WORDS Premise, equal premise, and conclusion indicators help us to sort out the logical relationships between an argument s claims. Indicator words are clues that tell us if a claim is a conclusion or a premise and this helps us to figure out how to create an argument outline diagram. Indicators are words that separate claims from each other. It is recommended that when reading an argument that you wish to convert into an argument outline that you first circle the indicator words. Examples of indicator words are since, because, hence, thus, and, yet. Please keep in mind that a premise indicator may indicate that the claim is a P/SC or a P and that a conclusion indictor may indicate that a claim is a MC or a P/SC PREMISE INDICATORS Premise indicators tell us that the part of the sentence or claim that comes after the indicator is a premise and the part before (or claim) is a conclusion for the premise. Usually. 1 The premises may be either a basic premise or a premise/sub-conclusion EQUAL PREMISE INDICATORS Equal premise indicators tell us that the claim before the equal premise indicator and the claim after the equal premise indicator directly support the same conclusion. The claim before the equal premise indicator and the claim after the equal premise indicator can be two different basic premises or two different premise/subconclusions such that both directly support the same sub-conclusion or main conclusion. The two different premises that directly support the same conclusion can do so independently or jointly. Later when we discuss diagramming we will use linking to indicate that equal premises jointly support the same conclusion CONCLUSION INDICATORS These indicators tell us that the part of the sentence or claim that comes after the indicator is a conclusion and the part before is a premise for the conclusion. Premise Indicators Equal Premise Indicators Conclusion Indicators Because And Therefore Since But Hence On account of Also Thus Due to Furthermore Consequently For Moreover So As a result of However It follows that For the reason that Nevertheless As a result In as much as Besides We can show that Given that Finally Suppose that Yet It follows from 1 An exception here is the word because which can indicate either a premise or a causal explanation as discussed in section

4 Examples of Indicators: Here is a string of unsupported claims that would not constitute an argument in our sense: "People who perform abortions are immoral. Abortion should be outlawed in every state. We should lock up people who perform abortions. Any legislator who favors abortion should be impeached." But notice that when we add circled indicators below, we do now have an argument since it is clear which claims are premises and which claim is the conclusion. It is also not clear which issue (and thus main conclusion) is being considered above. While we might make a good guess as to the main conclusion, the use of indicators can make this clear: "Because people who perform abortions are immoral, it follows that abortion should be outlawed in every state and also that we should lock up people who perform abortions. Thus, any legislator who favors abortion should be impeached." The word "because" is a premise indicator for people who perform immoral ; it follows that signifies that what follows ( abortion should be outlawed in every state ) is a conclusion, in this case a sub-conclusion of the preceding premise. Also is an equal premise indicator for the premise we should lock up abortions, that is to be combined with the sub-conclusion, abortion should be outlawed in every state, such that both will equally support the main conclusion, any legislator who favors abortion should be impeached, which is indicated by the word thus. As you can see, this can get pretty complicated; this is why it s helpful and easier to diagram arguments. By the way, is the argument as stated a good argument? Why or why not? Following is a list of premise, equal premise, and conclusion indicators. You should become supersensitive to these words. Although often misused, they are logical terms that help you determine the structure of an argument. To help sensitize you to their use, you should circle them whenever you spot one of these creatures. You should also learn to use them whenever you provide arguments to support your views. You may earn some extra credit if you wish by turning in a list of premise, equal premise, and conclusion indicators in a language other than English or turn in a list of additional indicators in English. Be sure to include at least eight words for each category. See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. for extra credit policy.. 2-4

5 2.3 THE MC-P OUTLINE METHOD T o help us understand and evaluate arguments, we will outline or diagram them by listing the premises and conclusions in their proper logical relationships with the appropriate symbols (MC, P/SC, P) preceding the premises or conclusions. Except for the MC, each premise or conclusion claim should be numbered. This will appear to be something like an outline, although in fact it is very different from an outline, which simply groups ideas by topics. Many students make this mistake when first learning to diagram. They confuse a diagram of an argument with a paper outline. When we diagram we break an argument into its parts and then reconstruct the parts to show the logical relationships between the parts. Thus, unlike a paper outline, the original sentence order of the written argument is often rearranged. We also toss out some unneeded parts: stage setting sentences, stylistic variants, explanatory comparisons, and indicators. These unneeded parts should be added to your garden compost for next spring. Here s a snapshot of one possible example of an argument outline or diagram: MC Main conclusion here what the author is trying to persuade you to believe or do P/SC1 A premise that gives you a good reason to believe the MC. It is also a sub-conclusion in relation to its supporting premise below. Thus we write P/SC1 here. P/SC2 -A premise that gives you a good reason to believe P/SC1 above. Thus it is below and indented one unit to the right of the P/SC1. It is also a sub-conclusion in relation to its supporting premise below. P3 Basic premise that gives you a good reason to believe P/SC2 above. Since there are no premises supporting this P3 we only write P3 here. Note that P3 is indented to the right of P/SC2. P4 Another basic premise that also gives you a good reason to believe the P/SC2 above. Since both P3 and P4 each directly supports the P/SC2, we say that P3 and P4 are equal premises. Since P3 and P4 are not linked we say that P3 and P4 each independently supports P/SC2 Both P3 and P4 are below that which they are supporting and indented one unit to the right from P/SC2. Each argument diagram should only have one MC claim that is placed at the top of the diagram. Next, place all P/SC or P claims that directly support the main conclusion underneath the MC but indent one unit to the right relative to the MC. If a claim that supports the main conclusion is itself supported by a premise then label the claim with a P/SC since it is a premise in support of the main conclusion but is simultaneously a sub-conclusion supported by another premise. Every P/SC or P should be written directly underneath and one unit to the right of the claim that they are supporting. For any premises that do not have other premises supporting them, label these non-supported premises with a P. These are called basic premises and serve as important foundational building blocks to the argument. An argument can theoretically have an infinite number of premises although in this course we will primarily be dealing with short arguments with no more than 10 or 15 premises. OK, argument diagrams are pretty confusing for most students because the diagrams look like outlines and because most students are not used to thinking about sentences and paragraphs in this way. Argument diagrams are not topic outlines. Instead argument diagrams organize claims by asking the question, which claim supports another claim? Which claim is being supported by another claim? Topic outlines organize claims by asking, 2-5

6 which claims fall under the same topic? Here s another illustration of argument outlines this time a picture or analogy in which the argument outline looks like the framing for a building. I m going to use the exact same diagram structure in the box on the preceding page but this time I will turn it into a picture. Take a look: MC P/SC1 P/SC2 P5 P4 P3 In the image above of a building, what do you see? Well first, the roof on top is the MC or main conclusion of the argument and is supported by the supporting premises beneath the MC. But the premises are not supporting the MC in just any old random manner. Instead there is a very definite structure to the argument. For instance, the direct support for the MC comes from P/SC1 and P5 both are literally touching the bottom of the roof. P/SC1 is then supported by P/SC2, which is literally touching the bottom of P/SC1, and then P4 and P3 are each supporting P/SC2. On the other side, P5 is directly supporting the MC because P5 is literally touching the bottom of the MC. In the case of P3, P4, and P5, since nothing is supporting these beams they are just labeled Ps or premises. Can you see that the picture and the diagram in the grey box are identical? We ll discuss this further in class but hopefully you have a sense of what diagramming is about. In the following sections I ll go into more detail and offer examples as well that you should try. First though - below are the specific steps you should follow when creating an argument outline. Here we go! IDENTIFY INDICATORS AND CLAIMS IN THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT 1. First circle all the premise, equal premise, or conclusion indicators in the argument that you are reading. 2. [Bracket and number] each claim and do your best to limit one idea to each claim. Also, make sure that your claims are either: 1) a simple declarative sentence (He is wearing a hat); OR 2) An if/then conditional (If he is wearing a hat, then his head is covered), OR 3) a disjunction (He is wearing a hat OR he is using sunscreen). 2-6

7 3. Underline the main conclusion. Note: If you identify two MCs then the author is confusing two issues. 2 You will then need to identify the different issues and deal with each one separately PARAPHRASE CLAIMS THAT ARE UNCLEAR Cross out unnecessary claims, paraphrase or rewrite claims if the claims are unclear. If you do rewrite unclear claims do your best to keep to the original, intended meaning. To paraphrase an argument or claim is to rewrite another's argument or claim in your own words without changing the meaning of the original argument or claim. By rewriting another's argument we can 1) check if we truly understand the claims; 2) clarify and make the other's argument clearer, and 3) identify areas that require further questioning or examination. What to keep in mind when paraphrasing: 1. Check to make sure that your paraphrased claims are complete sentences. 2. Rewrite all rhetorical questions as declarative statements. Rhetorical questions are statements in the form of a question but whose meaning is that of a declarative claim. In other words, rhetorical questions are questions that really are not questions but instead are stylistic variants of declarative claims. i. For example the rhetorical question, Shouldn t you quit smoking? should be transformed into, You should quit smoking. 3. Reduce to a minimum the vocabulary in which the argument is presented. 4. Replace pronouns (he, she, it) with their reference (Marty, Melinda, Blimpy) 5. Clarify vague and ambiguous terms if you are fairly sure that you are not distorting the author's view; OR omit vague and ambiguous terms if you truly cannot determine what is being said. 6. Paraphrase figurative language - or metaphor language that is not intended to be taken literally but instead is language that paints a "picture," which then stands for something else. For example, in the phrase, "he was caught red handed," "Red-handed" is figurative; he literally did not have red hands, but instead this stands for something else which he was stealing. Thus this would be paraphrased as "He was caught stealing." 7. Paraphrase uses of irony. Irony is when one intentionally says the opposite of what they really mean and often irony is used to point out the absurdity of a position. Sarcasm is often a type of irony. Like I m really stupid, duh! should be paraphrased as I am not stupid if it s clear from the context that this is the intended meaning. 2 Unless the author is committing the red herring fallacy and intentionally introducing a new issue in order to avoid talking about the original issue. 2-7

8 2.3.3 CREATE AN ARGUMENT OUTLINE FROM THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT 1. Only use premise(s) and conclusion(s) claims Your argument outline will only use premise and conclusion claims from the argument that you are diagramming. These claims include claims that you have bracketed, claims that you have paraphrased to make clear, and implied claims that were not in the written argument but are strongly implied by the written argument. FYI: In the next section of this chapter I review what to omit from your diagram. 2. Notation - Each claim must be preceded by the letters MC, P/SC, or P. In addition you should number sequentially the P/SCs and Ps so that you can easily refer to specific claims when you discuss the outline. Finally, add an (I) next to these symbols if the claim is implied. For example, MC(I), P/SC(I), or P(I). 3. Complete sentences - When you place your claims - premises and conclusions into the argument outline, each claim must be written as a complete sentence! That means subject-verb-predicate. If you have to paraphrase or rewrite a bit to make it a complete sentence, then do so. Again, remember you can use declarative sentences, conditionals (if/then statements) or disjunctions (A or B). 4. One claim per premise or conclusion Except for some conjunctions, each premise or conclusion should contain just one claim. For example, Fishes swim or Elephants eat hay is a single claim (a disjunction), Fishes swim and Elephants eat hay should probably be listed separately as Fishes swim ; Elephants eat hay. 5. Indentations This is by far the most difficult part. Create your argument outline by placing the fullsentence premises or conclusions into outline form such that each sentence-claim is listed on a separate line and indented - or not - depending on whether a claim is supporting or not supporting another claim, or whether two or more claims are equally supporting another claim. Indent Rule: If a claim a basic premise (P) or premise/sub-conclusion (P/SC) - is directly supporting (ie, offers evidence to believe) another claim that is a premise/sub-conclusion (P/SC) or MC, then the supporting claim must be located beneath the supported claim and indented one unit to the right. The MC claim by the way is always placed at the top of the outline, all the way to the left. All claims that directly support the MC are located below the MC and are indented one unit to the right of the MC. FYI: This is probably the most difficult concept to get and will take some practice!! 6. Equal premise claims Often two or more claims will directly support the same P/SC or MC. These claims are called equal premises since these claims equally or directly support the same conclusion claim (P/SC or MC). If this is the case, then list these equal premise claims one after the other in descending order although the specific order does not matter. It s up to you the order in which you list equal premises. What is important though is that, regardless of the sequence order, these equal premises must be located on the same horizontal indent (ie all equal premises must be on the same indent unit to the right). Again, equal premises may be either P/SCs, Ps, or a combination of P/SCs and Ps. 7. Linking of equal premise claims Although two or more equal premises directly support the same P/SC or MC, the idea of directly supporting is ambiguous. Does direct support mean that each equal premise by itself supports the same conclusion or that all the equal premises taken together support the same conclusion or that most of the equal premises taken together support the same conclusion? 2-8

9 In order to clarify this ambiguity you must make ONE of the following THREE CHOICES when dealing with equal premises: 1) link with solid lines, 2) do not link at all, or 3) link with dotted lines, Here are the rules for linking: 1) When to link with solid lines: First, if two or more equal premises do not, alone, support a conclusion independently but only in conjunction with one another, then circle the P/SC or P symbol for each equal premise and connect them with a solid line. For example: MC - Socrates is wise. P1 Socrates is a philosopher. P2 All philosophers are wise. You should keep in mind that if two premises are linked and one of the premises is found to be false, then the linked premises taken together fails to support the conclusion. By the way, can you convert the above-diagrammed argument into prose form? How many stylistic variants of this argument can you form? Compare your answer to mine below. 3 2) When you don t have to link: If two or more equal premises each by itself directly supports the same P/SC then you should not link them. Here, by the way is an example of non-linked, independent premises: MC You should complete as much critical reasoning homework as you are able to. P1 The homeworks will prepare you for the exams. P2 If you complete the homeworks you will be a nicer person in the end. In this case P1 by itself and P2 by itself each directly supports the same conclusion claim in this case the main conclusion. Can you spot the use of moral and prudential claims here? 3) When to link with dotted lines preponderance of evidence: At times you will come across an argument with equal premises that do not support the conclusion independently or as linked premises. In this case you have what lawyers term a preponderance of evidence. For example this argument by Thomas Jefferson that I ve paraphrased to keep brief: 3 Socrates is wise because he is a philosopher and all philosophers are wise. OR Socrates is a philosopher and all philosophers are wise, thus Socrates is wise. OR Since all philosophers are wise and as well Socrates is a philosopher it follows that Socrates is wise. OR 2-9

10 MC The King of Great Britain has, in seeking to establish an absolute tyranny over the U.S., repeatedly injured and committed usurpations against the U.S. P1 The King has dissolved representative houses for opposing the King s invasions of the people s rights. P2 The King has called for legislative meetings at unusual, uncomfortable, and distant places in order to fatigue the colonists into compliance with his measures. P3 The King has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people agree to give up their right of representation in the legislature. P4 The King has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and urgent importance. It s pretty obvious I think that premises 1 through 4 itemizing the King s offenses are not independent since taken singly each one alone does not pass the premise test leading to the conclusion. Try it. Do you agree? Now, since the MC lists repeated injuries and usurpations it seems that we must link P1 through P4 together in order to support the MC that there are repeated injuries. The problem here though is that if just one of these P s is found to be false, since all are linked, the argument will fail if Mr. King had done all but one of these things. This seems wrong too. In arguments like this where the relationship between equal premises and conclusion lies somewhere between linked premises and independent premises, link the premises together with a dashed line indicating a preponderance of evidence such that even if one premise is found to be false the remaining premises taken together still support the conclusion. 8. Determine whether to split conjunction claims - Conjunction claims are claims with the form, A and B that are often separated by an equal premise indicator such as and, but, yet, or also. Sometimes you may keep a conjunction claim together as a single claim and other times you should split the conjunction claim into two separate claims each on its own line. 2-10

11 Let s look at the four argument diagrams below Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4: Figure 1 MC A P/SC1 B and C P2 D Figure 2 MC A P/SC1 B P2 D P/SC3 C P2 D Link: P/SC1 and P/SC3 Figure 3 MC A P/SC1 B P2 D P3 C Figure 4 MC A P/SC1 B P2 D P/SC3 C P4 E Notice that I do not split the conjunction, B and C in figure 1 but that I do split the conjunction in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Let s look at each diagram format and see if I did the right thing here! Let s start with Figures 1 and 2. Both Figures 1 and 2 are saying the exact same thing do you see? In Figure 1, the claim P2- D offer support for both B and C and in Figure 2, the claim, P2- D also offers support for both B and C. Technically, figure 1 and 2 are identical and I would accept either answer from you! However, aesthetically, figure 1 is better it s more elegant and takes up less space. But ultimately I won t mark you down if you use the format in figure 2 it s your judgment call here. Now, let s look at figures 3 and 4. If claim D only supports one claim of the conjunction, let s say B, then you must split the conjunction into a separate B and a separate C as I did in Figure 3. It would be incorrect if you did not do this given that D does not support C! Do you see why this is? Finally, figure 4 is pretty much the same a figure 3 except another claim is given that6 supports C and not B! Hence figure 4. So in a nutshell you must think about what each claim means in order to diagram successfully. Indicators are very helpful but often indicators cannot, alone, tell us how to diagram. 9. Double-check your diagram inference-by-inference by translating each inference of the diagram into sentence form and then by applying the premise-test. So you can make use indicators AND the premise-test to figure out the diagram especially if you are confused about the argument structure. Here s an example using the diagram on the next page. 2-11

12 First, can you see that there are four inferences in this diagram? I ve copied the diagram into four separate boxes, one for each inference, and highlighted in yellow the specific inference that we are checking. In addition for each inference I provide a translation of each inference into sentence form for you. Once you have identified the specific inferences I have below, you can then apply the premise test to check two things: 1) is this a plausible inference from the author s point of view? If it is plausible then you have diagrammed correctly (assuming you are not ignoring indicators). If it is not even plausible then you probably have not diagrammed correctly and you need to rearrange the premises and conclusions to make it work; 2) does the inference pass the premise test? You can discuss this issue afterwards when you evaluate the diagram Remember you are diagramming from the author s point of view (not your own point of view!!) 2-12

13 2.3.4 CHECK FOR IMPLIED CLAIMS Implicit claims are claims that are left unstated by the author but required in order to ensure that the argument is either coherent or sound. Implicit claims can be either conclusions or premises. An implicit conclusion is a conclusion that is implied or necessarily suggested but is not explicitly stated in the given argument. An implicit premise is a premise that is implied but is not explicitly stated in the given argument. When diagramming an argument, that is, when photographing an argument, the arguer will often intend that one claim supports another and yet it may be clear to you that the intended premise does not in fact support the conclusion. For instance, if it does not pass the Premise Test. Should you represent this as a premise when diagramming the argument? At this stage yes since the first step when diagramming another s argument is to present the argument from the perspective of the arguer. But, when evaluating the argument you can and should note, when the implication or inference does not hold, that the author is reasoning poorly. Do not however indicate premises as supporting subconclusion when it is impossible to conceive of any rational person intending that a premise supports a conclusion or sub-conclusion. If you cannot reorganize the diagram and perhaps omit unnecessary claims then perhaps you are not dealing with an argument at all! For example, you may be dealing with a series of non-sequiturs. See the end of this chapter for an example of this and the notations that I ll use on your papers to indicate when you are committing this fallacy (or error in reasoning) of the nonsequitur (in Latin: it does not follow) Here s an example: Carlos: I want you to know that I m going to be late for dinner this evening because of the traffic on Highway 99. As given there is one stated premise, There is traffic on Highway 99 this evening that leads one to believe the main conclusion, Carlos will be late for dinner this evening. However, it is unstated but implied that Carlos must take Highway 99 and not some other route in order to arrive for dinner. So really we have two premises the one stated premise as given above and an implicit premise: Carlos must take Highway 99 in order to arrive for dinner. Implicit main conclusions are a bit easier to deal with as there is only one implicit main conclusion to be identified as long as one is discussing one issue. Here s an example: Advertisement: Fitness19 is just right for you because you ll receive30 minute total body workout, baby-sitting facilities, mega cardio center, and discounted family membership. Can you identify the implicit or implied conclusion? As with most advertisements, the implicit (and often unstated) conclusion is, Buy X. In this case the implicit conclusion is: Join Fitness 19 now. Or consider the following example: You're an embezzler. Therefore, you're a criminal. So, you know where you'll end up, don't you? And say Hello to the warden when you get there. 2-13

14 The above argument is incomplete. But we can make a good guess at what the arguer means. Here is the reconstructed diagrammed argument with both the implicit premise and implied conclusion filled in. MC(I) - You will end up in jail. P1 (I) All criminals end up in jail. P/SC2 You're a criminal. P3 You're an embezzler. You should be asking a couple questions at this point 1) how many implicit premises are there in a given argument? and 2) how do I know when to use them and when not to? The answer to the first question is that it depends. It depends on the sort of argument one is dealing with but generally there are probably zillions, perhaps an infinite? number of implicit premises but don t worry as you only need to include in your argument diagrams essential implicit premises. Generally you can omit implicit premises that we have no reason to question and that form the background of our everyday reasoning. We term these background beliefs and are discussed below. Remember that an implied premise is nothing other than a missing premise needed to make an argument valid or strong. With the implied premise and conclusion filled in, both steps of the above argument are valid, and thus the argument is valid. A general rule of thumb is to only include as implicit claims, claims that could come up for discussion and claims which, if absent, the reader could not be led to see the conclusion. You can also add implicit premises to rule out a specific counterexample. Implicit claims are extremely important to consider when diagramming arguments since without including these in your diagrams you might unfairly, and too hastily dismiss an argument, or too quickly accept a dubious argument WHAT TO OMIT FROM ARGUMENT OUTLINES 1. Omit Stylistic Variants - Stylistic variants are two or more sentences or phrases that have different words but carry the same meaning. With respect to arguments, stylistic variants are two or more expressions of the same claim. Thus I am stuck in traffic, Traffic is all around my car, and I am surrounded by non-moving automobiles on a highway, are all stylistic variants of one another. Each sentence uses different words but each expresses the same meaning as a claim. Why is this important? When diagramming or outlining an argument we seek to capture the essential core of the argument and see how the various claims fit together into a logical whole. Thus it usually makes little sense to repeat the same claim two or more times. Instead, each claim should appear once in the argument outline. Thus, when you spot two or more claims that are stylistic variants you should use just one of the stylistic variants in the argument outline unless the author clearly intended to use stylistic variants as reasons for one another. 2-14

15 If the author of the argument that you are outlining intends to use one stylistic variant as a reason to believe another stylistic variant then the author has committed an error of reasoning in this case the begging the question fallacy. You can in this case retain the author s stylistic variant but only if you then point out the error when you evaluate the argument! Sensitivity to stylistic variants will improve your writing as well. While it s often useful in your writing to make use of stylistic variants (for example, explanatory definitions or comparisons), overuse of these leads to redundancy. Awareness of stylistic variants helps us to write more concisely. 2. Omit Stage Setting Claims - As stated above, not every statement or sentence in an argument operates as a premise or a conclusion. Some sentences just give background information or stage setting that simply places the author's argument in context: by explaining why something is being discussed or providing background information. You should omit these sorts of claims from argument diagrams. For example: El Salvador is a small country in Central America. It is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. The U.S. should discontinue all aid to the government. The government is terribly corrupt. MC The U.S. should discontinue all aid to the government. P1 The government is terribly corrupt. You should omit the stage setting background information. 3. Omit Unnecessary Words - Paraphrasing is legitimate and often helpful since you can eliminate unnecessary words such as stylistic variants, references to authorship, slanter words, unassertions, and hedge words. 4. Omit references to authorship - Don t worry about who is giving the reasons, just focus on the reasons that are given by the author. Another way to think of this is to omit the first and third person dependent clauses "He says" or "Rogers thinks" or "I think that". Who said it is irrelevant because we really want to pay attention to the kinds of things people will reason about, not their attitudes toward what they reason about. Usually. What is being said is relevant. Hint: Avoid the Ad Hominid fallacy here. EXCEPTION: Include references to the person if the argument is about why person reasons as they do. 5. Omit slanter words - Slanters are slimy little words that try to manipulate us into thinking that the author has already given a persuasive argument for an opinion when in actuality there is no support given for the opinion. Slanter words should make you suspicious: "Why does this author substitute slanters in place of giving their reasons up front? Examples of slanter words: "Obviously "It is a well known fact that " "Clearly " "As we all know " Any idiot can see " 6. Omit unassertions - Unassertions are claims whose truth we are not committed to. With unasserted claims or suppositions we do not believe them to be true. But we also do not believe them to be false. We simply are not committed to them either as true or false. Unassertions usually include words like might, could, or possibly. Premises (see below) should not be unassertions unless the unassertions are inserted into conditionals (see below) or you can reasonably rephrase them as assertions. Unassertions are still considered claims, however, because unassertions are still true or false. Example: That might be an umbrella. Since it is only possible that the object is an umbrella this is a claim that the author is not committed to in terms of its truth-value. It is still a claim by the way because it 2-15

16 makes sense to ask whether the statement, That might be an umbrella is true or false true in that there is a possibility that it is an umbrella or false in that there is no possibility that it is an umbrella. Generally unassertions are ignored when constructing one s own argument or when analyzing another s argument. You may however restate or paraphrase unassertions as assertions if this is consistent with the arguer s intention. While you should revise or omit unassertions you should, obviously, retain assertions. Assertions are claims whose truth we are committed to. We do believe or assume these to be true. Even if these claims are false, if we say that we believe them to be true, then such claims are assertions. Example: Martians exist. If I truly believe this to be true then I have just given an assertion even though this claim is actually false. All premises should be assertions. Thus Martians might exist. is an unassertion and should not be used in an argument. 7. Omit hedge words - Hedges are comments by the author in which the author qualifies or "downgrades" their view of something. "Drag racing is great, some of the time." "Some of the time" serves to downgrade this claim. If we leave "some of the time" in the claim, it is sort of useless, due to the vagueness of "some of the time." When exactly is drag racing great or not? So leave out the hedge and then look for reasons given by the author as to why they are hedging. If no reasons are given then be suspicious. The author isn t sure of their reason and or argument here. These are especially good to take into account when evaluating arguments. They are tip-offs of lack of confidence by the arguer. For example, "X suggests Y" is weaker than "X implies Y" 8. Omit indicator words 9. Omit background beliefs - Every claim is presented against an unstated set of background beliefs needed for the claim to make sense. Background beliefs are claims that must be true in order for other claims to be either true or false. For example the claim, You drive a car contains unstated background claims or presuppositions such as The industrial revolution occurred ; cars are widely available ; cars are transportation devices that people can direct, etc. Usually background claims or presuppositions can remain unstated. Background beliefs are uncontroversial and not confusing nor puzzling. Test to see if X is a background belief: X is a background belief if it is difficult to picture or imagine the contrary of X. (it s hard to even picture to ourselves X as false). You can think of background beliefs or presuppositions as built-in software code that are invisible, rarely are discussed yet required in order for claims to make sense. Note: Background beliefs are not implicit premises because presuppositions are not required to ensure that an argument is good or sound. Thus we don t add these to our MC-P diagrams. But they do help in evaluating arguments because a premise that rests on false background presuppositions can be tossed out - not because it is a false premise but because it is a meaningless premise. 2-16

17 2.4 MC-P METHOD - EXAMPLES Example 1 - Let s use an argument that I just heard on national public radio, 91.3 FM regarding Make My Day or Castle laws: We should not legalize the right for a homeowner to shoot to kill a home intruder for any reason because homeowners are not really in danger of going to jail for shooting intruders since no jury actually convicts homeowners for shooting intruders. Also, most cases of home intruders are actually that of drunken neighbors or their friends who accidentally enter the wrong house especially in subdivisions with look-alike houses. Finally, common law says that a burglar s life is worth more than any property that they take. I have bolded the indicator words of the written argument which I have paraphrased (btw, if I paraphrased incorrectly then I have violated the principle of fidelity). Here s the argument outline or diagram of the above argument: MC - We should not legalize the right for a homeowner to shoot to kill a home intruder unless in defense of the homeowner s life. P/SC1 - Homeowners are not really in danger of going to jail for shooting intruders. P2 - No jury actually convicts homeowners for shooting intruders. P3 - Most cases of home intruders are actually that of drunken neighbors or their friends who accidentally enter the wrong house especially in subdivisions with look-alike houses. P4 - Common law says that a burglar s life is worth more than any property that they take. Notice how I applied the rules. First, I omitted all indicators from the argument outline but I did pay attention to these indicators!! I also rewrote the MC slightly because for any reason was ambiguous and unclear. Then I examined the indicators to see whether a claim was a premise or a conclusion. Here s what I found: Equal premises: P/SC1, P3, and P4 are connected by the equal premise indicators also and finally and P/SC1, P3, and P4 all directly support the same conclusion in this case the MC. So P/SC1, P3, and P4 are all equally indented to the right (one unit) and all directly support the same MC. A premise: P2 is preceded by the premise indicator, since which also occurs after the P/SC1 which means that P2 is a reason to believe, reason in support of.. P/SC1. Note that what comes after the premise indicator since is a premise in support of what comes before the since indicator. What comes before the since indicator is then a conclusion, a premise/sub-conclusion to be specific that is supported by P2. Why do we call P/SC2 a premise/sub-conclusion? Because P/SC2 is simultaneously supported by P2 and is supporting the MC so P/SC2 is both a premise and a sub-conclusion at the same time. Hence.. P/SC2! Thus P2 is indented one unit to the right (and below) of P/SC1. P2 directly supports P/SC1. P2 does not directly support, in this argument, the MC. Finally I should probably link P/SC1, P3, and P4 because I m not sure that each one by itself, alone, supports the MC. If you still are lost and unclear how this works, don t despair if you work through the examples in this chapter and in your HWs you should be able to get it. You probably have never been asked to do something like this before and so you must realize it will take a bit of practice and effort on your part to master argument 2-17

18 outlining. Finally, you need to realize that if you don t understand what a claim is saying then you won t be able to diagram or outline the argument! Why? Because you have to think about what the claim is saying in order to figure out what the claim supports or is supported by. Example 2: Abortions should remain legal. Legalization diminishes the number of unsafe abortions and allows each woman to choose whether or not to have a child. MC - Abortions should remain legal. P1 - Legalization diminishes the number of unsafe abortions. P2 - Legalization allows each woman to choose whether or not to have a child. Example 3: Driving when you are drunk is harmful to yourself. It is also immoral since other people s lives are endangered. Therefore you should never drive when you are drunk. MC You should never drive when you are drunk. P1 - Drunk driving is harmful to you. P/SC2 - Drunk driving is immoral. P3 - Other people s lives are endangered. Example 4: You should not smoke cigarettes. They are certainly bad for your health since studies have conclusively linked cigarette smoking with lung cancer. Also, you endanger others since studies have shown that being in the vicinity of smokers increases the probability of contracting cancer. Finally, cigarette smoking interferes with one s concentration. MC - You should not smoke. P/SC1 - Cigarettes are bad for your health. P2 - Studies have linked them with lung cancer. P/SC3 - You endanger others. P4 - Studies have shown that being in the vicinity of smokers increases the probability of contracting cancer. P5 - Cigarette smoking interferes with one s concentration. Example 5. You should run several miles everyday. Exercise is very important. It contributes to both psychological and physical health. Studies have shown that exercise lessens depression. MC -You should run several miles everyday. P/SC1 - Exercise is very important P2 - Exercise contributes to physical health. P/SC3 - Exercise contributes to psychological health. P4 - Studies show it cures depression. 2-18

19 2.5 REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: USING MC-P METHOD TO TEST A CLAIM Reductio ad absurdum is a philosophical tool that is used to show that a claimed truth is likely instead to be false. Reductio ad absurdum starts with a claim made by one s opponent and then, using good inferences, arrives at an absurd conclusion implied by the claimed truth. The only way that the conclusion can be absurd or false while the inferences are strong, is that the claimed truth by the opponent is actually false. Hence, their claim has been falsified. Reductio ad absurdum is especially powerful because it allows us, for the purpose of argument, to grant for a moment what our opponent believes. We say, Let s suppose you are right. What would be the consequences? If we can then show that the consequences are absurd, we can force the opponent to admit something is wrong in his or her position. If you believe X, you must believe Y. Yet Y is absurd. So, do you really believe X? 4 You can use the MC-P argument outline method to falsify a claim using reductio ad absurdum. First, make the claim that you wish to show is false a basic premise and then, assuming it to be true, build an argument with strong inferences from this basic premise to a main conclusion that is either clearly false or absurd. You can think of this as the reverse of argument diagramming where you begin by looking for the main conclusion and then work downwards. With reductio ad absurdum you start with a basic premise (the premise you intend to show false) and then work upwards to a clearly false main conclusion via inferences that pass the premise test. Clearly this is a bad argument yet the inferences are strong (if you did this correctly). But how can this be? How can an argument s conclusion be false yet the inferences strong? The only way you can have a bad argument with good inferences is if the basic premise is false. Hence reductio ad absurdum (reducing to absurdity). Note: If you can construct not just a strong but a valid argument with a false conclusion then you must, 100% have a false basic premise (since the inferences are valid). Here are a couple examples: Example 1: Let s say I want to falsify the claim, Cars fly through the air. First I make my basic premise the claim I seek to falsify and pretend that it s true: MC P/SC1- P2 Cars fly through the air. Next, I build an argument from the basic premise with inferences that pass the premise-test to a main conclusion that is either absurd or clearly false: MC There is little freeway traffic anymore. P/SC1 Most people fly their cars to work instead of driving on the freeways. P2 Cars can fly through the air. Example 2: This time I m seeking to falsify a morally related claim that, the money a person makes is a reflection of their talent and effort: 4 Julian Baggini, The Philosopher s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosphical Concepts and Methods, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, p

20 MC All people with high incomes work harder and are more talented than those who are poor. P1 - The money that a person makes reflects their talent and effort The MCs above in these two examples are clearly false but the inferences from the P to P/SC and P to MC and P/SC to MC all pass the premise-test. Right? Thus the only way that the MC can be false but the P-tests are passed is if the basic P is false. (Note of course that categorical premises (all, none, always, etc) are much, much easier to falsify than qualified P s (some). Note: you may link the basic premise to another basic premise but only if the second basic premise is clearly true, for example a definition or conceptual reminder. 2.6 SHORT ARGUMENT EXERCISES Read each argument first and look up any words that you do not know. If you are not sure if you know the definition of a word, then close your eyes and see if you can give a precise definition fairly quickly. If you cannot you should look up the word in a dictionary because this will empower you, since you ll develop habits that will help you to understand how the world works in a more precise and powerful way Next circle all indicators, then bracket claims, and then, following the instructions in chapter 5, diagram the following arguments and answer any related questions if asked to do so. Be sure to write (or type) each premise and conclusion(s) completely. If you think implicit or hidden claims are necessary then you may include them in your diagram. Write P(I) or P/SC (I) to note that a claim is implicit. Note: if you spot Stylistic Variants only include ONE of the variants in your diagram. The EASIEST way to complete this assignment is to copy and paste each argument in your word processing program and then rearrange the claims in MC/P order. Just be sure that each premise is a complete sentence. (you might have to paraphrase a little to ensure the premise is a full sentence). 1. Circle all indicators 2. Underline [or bracket] and number the premises. 3. Double underline the MC (Main Conclusion) 4. If asked to diagram the argument, paraphrase any unclear claims. 1. A because B because C since D thus E. 2. A because B and because C since D but E hence F. 3. Complete this homework because it will raise your IQ by 300 points if you do. 4. Always wear a helmet when bicycling in the city since motorists often do not see you and because accidents are common. 5. We should go for a hike in the Santa Cruz Mountains because the weather is perfect today and also because exercise is good for us. 2-20