I. What is an Argument?

I. What is an Argument? In philosophy, an argument is not a dispute or debate, but rather a structured defense of a claim (statement, assertion) about some topic. When making an argument, one does not merely state what they think is a good answer to a particular philosophical question; instead, they explain why it is a good answer to that question, and ideally, why it is a better answer than any alternative views on the matter. To make an argument, one provides at least one reason (stated in the form of sentence as a premise) in support of a claim that is presented as the logical conclusion of one s reasoning. A claim by itself is not an argument. For example, A. Barack Obama is the best president the U.S. has ever had. B. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body. C. Dogs are better pets than cats. are not arguments, but merely claims, since they are not accompanied by any premises which count as reasons to think a conclusion is true. But If we add premises in support of these claims (written in italics), they become arguments: A*. Barack Obama is the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he made affordable healthcare insurance available to all Americans. B*. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body, because the Bible tells us so. C*. Dogs are better pets than cats, since every dog I have ever encountered has been friendly. but not necessarily good arguments. As I will explain further in section II ( Evaluating Arguments ), just because an author has provided a premise in defense of their conclusion doesn t mean that 1) the premise actually does support their claim, or 2) the premise is a philosophically-acceptable type of reason to accept a conclusion. Some authors make it very clear what the premises and conclusion of their argument are, even going to the trouble to label them with numbers, letters, or names, and/or indenting them on separate lines of the paper, so they are easy to identify. For example, here s an excerpt from a former Baruch professor s paper, which uses this strategy (don t worry about what it says or means just how the premises (C+ and R) and conclusion (CR) are presented): So far I have offered evidence for C+, which is the claim that there is a close causal interaction between action and time mechanisms. I also offered an argument for claim R, which is that a close causal relationship between two mechanisms requires representations that have a similar or same representational format. Putting C+ and R together we have an argument: C+: There is a close causal relationship between mechanisms of time perception and action 1

R: If two mechanisms closely causally interact then at least some of the representations through which they interact have the same or similar mode of presentation, so as to make them easily translatable. Therefore, CR: At least some of the representations used in action have the same or similar mode of presentation as the mode of presentation used in action preparation and execution. But in other philosophical works, the premises and conclusion might be buried within the author s writing, or not stated very succinctly. Fortunately, authors often signal premises and conclusions with particular key words that come immediately before, which we can call premise-flags and conclusion-flags. Premise-flags: because, since, given that, for (and synonyms of these words) Conclusion-flags: thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, so, consequently Let s look at how this works in some simple sample arguments: Because euthanasia is murder, it is always morally wrong. PREMISE CONCLUSION Affirmative action is right, since it corrects inequality of opportunity. CONCLUSION PREMISE Creationism conflicts with evolution, so it must be false. PREMISE CONCLUSION I pinched myself and felt it, therefore I must not be dreaming right now. PREMISE CONCLUSION When you read philosophy, look out for these words as helpful signals to the structure of the author s argument. It is often helpful to summarize the argument for yourself, by singling out the premises and conclusion and writing them in order. The conventional way to do this is to stack the premises on top of solid line, and write the conclusion underneath (kind of like a math problem, where the numbers you re adding or subtracting go above the line, and the answer goes below). For example: 1. Studying philosophy will improve your critical thinking skills. 2. Good critical thinking will improve your scores on the LSAT, GMAT, GRE, etc. 3. Therefore, if you study philosophy, you will do well on the LSAT etc. The premises, 1 and 2, are listed above the line, and the conclusion they are meant to support, 3, is below the line. Any philosophical work will have a main argument defending the author s central conclusion, which is basically the work s thesis statement. If an author feels that a 2

reader may not automatically agree that one of the premises in the main argument is true, or that it is a good kind of premise, they may need to provide an auxiliary argument (an additional, supplementary one) in defense of that premise. Jim Pryor explains how this works as follows, using the letters A, B, and C to stand in for different claims: [an] author's discussion may have the form: The conclusion I want you to accept is A. My argument for this conclusion is as follows: B and C are true, and if B and C are true, then A must also be true. It is generally accepted that B is true. However, it is controversial whether C is true. I think you ought to accept C for the following reasons... Here the author's main argument is for the conclusion A, and in the process of arguing for A he advances an auxiliary argument in support of C. (2006, 1) In Pryor s example, the author s main argument supports conclusion A using premises B and C. But since not everyone might accept C as a given, the author supports C with an auxiliary argument, which presumably would use a new set of premises (say, D, E, and F). Note that a single claim, C, can serve as a premise in one argument, but as a conclusion in another argument. II. Evaluating Arguments One of your duties as a philosophy student is not to take anything an author says for granted. Instead, you must take a critical stance while reading and listening to arguments, and pay careful attention to the reasoning an author uses to support their conclusion. A good argument gives us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true (or at least, a better answer to a certain question than some other answer). It does so because: 1) its premises are true, 2) its premises are worthy of our belief, and 3) its conclusion follows from the premises. Philosophers use four main concepts to describe these properties of good arguments: validity, soundness, consistency, and persuasiveness. (You will learn a lot more about these characteristics if you take PHI 1600 (Logic and Moral Reasoning) but we will just learn some of the basics that will be helpful for this course.) VALIDITY An argument is valid when the truth of the conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises fulfilling condition 3) of a good argument. This means that if you treated the premises as if they were true, you would have to accept the conclusion as true. Another way of saying this is that an argument is valid when the premises entail that is, lead you to accept the conclusion. 3

Validity is a consequence of an argument s form, not its content. That means that it doesn t matter what the premises and conclusion say, nor whether they are true or false it only matters how the premises and conclusion relate to each other. We can analyze an argument s form by replacing the propositions (phrases that can stand alone as sentences) within it with letters that symbolize those propositions. Valid Argument Forms For this class, it will be helpful to be familiar with three classic valid argument forms. Philosophers have been using these for centuries, and they will show up in many of the articles we will read. MODUS PONENS (MP) 1) If P, then Q. 2) P 3) Therefore Q. P and Q stand for any two different propositions. Let s let P = you are enrolled in PHI 1500, and Q = your name is on the roster. When we substitute those propositions for the letters P and Q, we get a valid argument: 1) If you are enrolled in PHI 1500, your name is on the roster. 2) You are enrolled in PHI 1500. 3) Therefore, your name is on the roster. Modus ponens is also called affirming the antecedent. That is because premise 1 is a conditional: a statement of the form If, then. Whatever proposition goes in the first blank is called the antecedent; whatever goes in the second blank is called the consequent. Conditional statements tell us that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent must be true. Premise 2 affirms that the antecedent is true. So from premises 1 and 2, we can infer that the consequent is true which is what our conclusion 3 says. We could substitute any claims we wanted for P and Q, but as long as we arrange them in the form of a modus ponens, the argument we make will be valid. E.g., 1) If the sky is purple, then pigs can fly. 2) The sky is purple. 3) Therefore pigs can fly. is a valid argument, even though neither 1 nor 2 is actually true. It is valid because if we suppose that 1 and 2 are true, then we would have to accept that 3 is true. MODUS TOLLENS (MT) 1) If P, then Q. 2) Not-Q. 3) Therefore not-p. 4

A modus tollens is also called denying the consequent. It starts out just like a modus ponens, with its 1 st premise in the form of a conditional. However, its 2nd premise differs: instead of affirming the antecedent, it denies the consequent (declares Q to be false), by saying that its opposite, not-q, is true. From these premises 1 and 2, we can infer than P is false, and not-p is true. This is because if P were true, then Q would be true too (which is what premise 1 tells us) but Q is not true (according to premise 2), so P must not be true. It will probably help to see an argument in the form of modus tollens: 1) If someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, their name is on the roster. 2) Kanye West s name is not on the roster. 3) Therefore, Kanye is not enrolled in PHI 1500. In this example, P= someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, and Q= someone s name is on the roster. Kanye West is a someone, so premise 2 says not-q. From 1 and 2 we infer not-p as our conclusion. To review: Modus ponens and modus tollens both begin with a conditional, a premise that makes an if [antecedent], then [consequent] statement. We symbolize premise 1 as if P, then Q, where P=antecedent and Q=consequent In a modus ponens, premise 2 affirms the antecedent (says P), allowing us to infer that the consequent is true (Q). In a modus tollens, premise 2 denies the consequent (says not-q), allowing us to infer that the antecedent is false (not-p). Comparing the forms side-by-side: MODUS PONENS (MP) MODUS TOLLENS (MT) 1) If P, then Q. 1) If P, then Q. 2) P 2) Not-Q. 3) Therefore Q. 3) Therefore Not-P. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (DS) 1) P or Q. 2) Not-P. 3) Therefore Q. A syllogism is any argument that has two premises and one conclusion, so MP and MT are also syllogisms. But unlike the previous two valid argument forms, a disjunctive syllogism does not begin with a conditional; rather, its first premise is a disjunction: a statement of the form or. We typically assume a disjunction to be exclusive, meaning that it says that one proposition or the other is true but not both. The 2 nd premise denies one of the two propositions in the disjunction (P is false). If we know that either P or Q must be true (from premise 1), and we know that P is not true (from premise 2), then we can infer 5

that Q is true. Making an argument with the form of a disjunctive syllogism is just like using the process of elimination: you have two options, and you ve ruled one out, so you conclude that the other must be the right one. Here s an example: 1) Socrates was a philosopher or Socrates was a historian. 2) Socrates was not a historian. 3) Therefore Socrates was a philosopher. Invalid Argument Forms It will also help to be familiar with three invalid argument forms. These look deceptively similar to the three valid forms above, which just goes to show that very subtle changes in an argument can make all the difference for whether it is good or bad. These have less snappy names AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT (premises 2 & 3 flipped from MP) 1) If P, then Q. 2) Q. 3) Therefore P. This form is invalid because it fails to take into account an alternative possibility. Consider this example (from Jim Pryor, 2006): 1) If there is a hedgehog in my engine, my car will not start. 2) My car will not start. 3) Therefore there must be a hedgehog in my engine. There are many, many reasons why a car might not start. While having a hedgehog in your engine is one of them, it is not the only explanation why a car wouldn t run, so we cannot conclude from premises 1 and 2 that the 3 is true. In fact, 3 is quite implausible it is much more likely that your car will not start because you re out of gas, or your battery is dead, etc. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT (premises 2 & 3 flipped from MT) 1) If P, then Q. 2) Not-P. 3) Therefore Not-Q. This is also invalid because it does not account for an alternative possibility. APremise 1 tells us that if P is true, then Q will be true too. Premise 2 says P is false. But we cannot infer from this information that Q is false, because it could be the case that something other than P accounts for Q being true. The following example might help: 1) If I forget my friend s birthday, she will be mad at me. 2) I will not forget my friend s birthday. 3) Therefore my friend will not me mad at me. 6

Ah, if only things were so simple. The trouble here is that the author has forgotten that her friend might get mad for some other reason besides having her birthday forgotten. One cannot conclude that 3 is true, because premises 1 and 2 do not guarantee that 3 is true it could be false because you have slighted your friend in some unforeseen way. DYSFUNCTIONAL SYLLOGISM (premise 2 opposite of DS) 1) P or Q. 2) P. 3) Therefore Q. Remember that we assume that a disjunction is exclusive, meaning that it says that one proposition or the other is true but not both. In this invalid argument form, we wrongly infer that both of the two options given by the disjunction in premise 1 are true. Consider this example: 1) Baruch is in Manhattan or Baruch is in New York. 2) Baruch is in Manhattan. 3) Therefore Baruch is in New York. This is a bit tricky. Conclusion 3 happens to be true, but the argument is not valid. Premise 1 implies that Baruch must be either in Manhattan or in New York, but not both. It so happens that Baruch is in both Manhattan and New York, because Manhattan is in New York so whatever is in Manhattan is also in New York. But that information isn t given as a premise in this argument. If we knew nothing about Baruch, Manhattan, or New York, we could not possibly infer from premises 1 and 2 alone that Baruch is in New York, so this argument is invalid. In a valid argument, the truth of the premises allows one to infer that the conclusion is true without any further background information. HIDDEN PREMISES Sometimes authors will not state one of the premises in support of their argument outright; rather, they will take it for granted that their reader will also assume that premise to be true. Consider the following example (from Pryor 2006): 1) All engineers enjoy ballet. 2) Therefore, some males enjoy ballet. As written, this argument is not valid. The subject of premise 1 is engineers, but the conclusion is about males. The conclusion does not follow from the premise as written; in other words, given just premise 1 and no other information, we could not infer that the conclusion is true. However, we can make this argument valid by writing in a hidden premise (in italics), which represents an assumption an author has made which allows them to infer the conclusion: 7

1) All engineers enjoy ballet. 2) Some engineers are male. 3) Therefore, some males enjoy ballet. Premise 2 provides a sort of missing link between premise 1 and the conclusion. It represents something that we all assume to be true, which seems to go without saying. But in philosophical argumentation, one should not count on the reader filling up a logical gap in one s argument, even with a premise that seems like it would be obvious to everyone. For all you know, your reader might only know female engineers, and has never entertained the idea that an engineer could be male. You cannot depend on the fact that your reader has the same background knowledge and assumptions about the world as you do. SOUNDNESS An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true, fulfilling conditions 1) and 3) of a good argument. When you assess an argument s validity, it doesn t matter what the premises actually say, but only that they entail the conclusion if they are true. But when you assess an argument s soundness, it does matter what the premises say - particularly whether or not they correspond with reality. Let s look at an example: 1) If someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, they are on the roster. 2) Kim Kardashian is enrolled in PHI 1500. 3) Therefore Kim K. is on the roster. This argument is valid, because it has the form of a modus ponens (where P= someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, Q= someone is on the roster, and Kim K. is a someone). But it is not sound, because premise 2 is false. An unsound argument does not support its conclusion. Remember that if an argument has a valid form, we can infer that the conclusion is true if the premises are true. But if the premises are not all true, then we cannot infer that the conclusion is true. A sound argument always has a true conclusion. So if you disagree with the conclusion of an argument, you are committed to viewing the argument as unsound: either because it is invalid, or because it is valid but one or more of its premises are false. CONSISTENCY An argument is consistent as long as none of its premises are contradictory. A contradiction occurs when a premise is inconsistent with itself (saying something like P and not-p ), or when two premises are inconsistent with each other ( P, not-p ). A contradiction cannot possibly be true, so an argument that contains a contradiction is unsound. PERSUASIVENESS 8

An argument is persuasive if it not only valid and sound, but its premises are obviously true, fulfilling condition 2) of a good argument. Consider the following argument: 1) Either God exists or 2+2 = 5. 2) 2+2 5. 3) Therefore God exists. This argument is valid, because it has the form of a disjunctive syllogism. However, premise 1 is not obviously true. To make this argument persuasive, the author would have to provide an auxiliary argument in defense of that disjunction, to convince us that it is true. FLAWED ARGUMENTS If an argument is not valid, sound, consistent, or persuasive, it is flawed, and does not provide a convincing defense of a claim, because the premises provided do not support the conclusion the author wants to defend. Another way that an argument can be flawed is to use a philosophical-unacceptable type of premise or pattern of reasoning to advance your argument. This is called committing a fallacy. Fallacies distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning (Smith 2009). There are many, many fallacies (for a nice summary, see http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetologicalfallacies/). For this class, we will focus on the following list (adapted from Smith 2009), with examples in italics. Note that fallacies can co-occur within a single argument. Emotional Fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience s emotions. Sentimental Appeals use emotion to distract the audience from the facts. The thousand of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source. Red Herrings use misleading or unrelated evidence to support a conclusion. That painting is worthless because I don t recognize the artist. Scare Tactics try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences. If you don t support the party s tax plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty. Bandwagon Appeals encourage an audience to agree with the writer because everyone else is doing so. Paris Hilton carries a small dog in her purse, so you should buy a hairless Chihuahua and put it in your Louis Vuitton. 9

Slippery Slope arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous results. If you get a B in high school, you won t get into the college of your choice, and therefore will never have a meaningful career. False Dichotomies reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of action. The patent office can either approve my generator design immediately or say goodbye forever to affordable energy. Ethical Fallacies unreasonably advance the writer s own authority or character. Appeals to Authority ask audiences to agree with the assertion of a writer based simply on his or her character or the authority of another person or institution who may not be fully qualified to offer that assertion. My high school teacher said it, so it must be true. Anecdotal Evidence is the use of limited personal experience or hearsay as proof. Cigarettes must not really be bad for you, because my friend s grandfather smoked every day at lived to the age of 90. Guilt by Association calls someone s character into question by examining the character of that person s associates. Sara s friend Amy robbed a bank; therefore, Sara is a delinquent. Dogmatism shuts down discussion by asserting that the writer s beliefs are the only acceptable ones. I m sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that s that. Moral Equivalence compares minor problems with much more serious crimes (or vice versa). These mandatory seatbelt laws are fascist. Ad Hominem arguments attack a person s character rather than that person s reasoning. Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced will keep her campaign promises? Strawperson arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments in order to misrepresent an opponent s argument in order to defeat him or her A: We need to regulate access to handguns. B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom. 10

Logical Fallacies depend upon faulty logic. Hasty Generalizations (including Stereotypes) draw conclusions from scanty evidence. I wouldn t eat at that restaurant the only time I ate there, my entree was undercooked. Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc) arguments confuse chronology with causation: one event can occur after another without being caused by it. A year after the release of the violent shoot- em-up video game Annihilator, incidents of school violence tripled surely not a coincidence. A Non Sequitur (Latin for It doesn t follow ) is a statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An important logical step may be missing in such a claim. She's wearing red shoes, so red must be her favorite color. An Equivocation is a bad form of argument where one of the key terms can be understood in two ways, and the plausibility of the argument depends on reading the term differently in different premises. Exams are a nightmare, and nightmares take place during sleep. Therefore, you must be asleep while taking exams. Begging the Question (or a Circular Argument) occurs when an author assumes their conclusion in one of their premises. Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity. A Faulty Analogy is an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things. Letting prisoners out on early release is like absolving them of their crimes. Confirmation Bias is cherry-picking evidence that supports one side of the issue, while ignoring evidence in support of the opposite side. Cats are superior to dogs because they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent. If an argument involves any one of these fallacies, it is flawed, regardless of whether or not you agree with its conclusion. For example, if your classmate argues that: Baruch is the best CUNY college, because it is the college that I attend. you should recognize that their argument is flawed, even though you probably do think that Baruch is the best CUNY college. The premise they have provided (the fact that a certain student is there) is not a good measure of the overall quality of a college, and certainly does not in itself give you reason to believe that all the other CUNY colleges are inferior. Your classmate would be using Anecdotal Evidence and a Red Herring to support her claim. 11

III. Responding to Arguments If you identify a problem with an argument, you can raise an objection against it. An objection may motivate you to suggest a revision to the argument, where you give different premises in support of the same conclusion, and/or show that those premises actually support a different conclusion. An objection may also motivate you to pose a counterargument, where you argue in favor of the opposite conclusion. Let s return to the sample arguments from page 1: A*. Barack Obama is the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he made affordable healthcare insurance available to all Americans. There are many reasons why someone might disagree with this argument. For example, you might think that the author hasn t provided sufficient support for the conclusion, by not giving enough information about Obama s presidential accomplishments to guarantee that he is the best U.S. president ever. You might agree with the conclusion, but disagree that healthcare reform makes Obama our best president. Or you might disagree with the conclusion and instead endorse the opposite conclusion. A sample revision to this argument might be: A+. Barack Obama is the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he expanded marriage rights and made affordable healthcare insurance available to all Americans. A sample counterargument might be: A-. Barack Obama is not the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he has failed to curb police brutality against people of color. Another example: B*. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body, because the Bible tells us so. You might disagree with B* if you are not certain that the Bible is a reputable source of information. You might even think that the author is defending their conclusion with a fallacious Appeal to Authority. Here s a possible revision: B+. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body, because there is no other way to explain conscious experience. And a counterargument: B+. Each of us does not possess a soul that outlives our body, because there is no verified scientific data to support the existence of souls. 12

One last example: C*. Dogs are better pets than cats, since every dog I have ever encountered has been friendly. You might disagree with C* if you have ever encountered an unfriendly dog, which would seem to disprove the conclusion that all dogs are friendly. At any rate, this argument uses anecdotal evidence about the author s personal experience with dogs, and exhibits confirmation bias by only presenting evidence about dogs and neglecting any favorable traits possessed by cats. A suggested revision: C+ Dogs are better pets than cats for people who want to make new friends, since dogs are generally more friendly to strangers than cats. And a possible counterargument: C- Dogs are not better pets than cats, since cats and dogs both have qualities that make them excellent pets for people with different dispositions. Works Cited Pryor, Jim. (2006) What is An Argument?, Vocabulary Describing Arguments, and Some Good and Bad Forms of Argument. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html Smith, Tamara. (2009) Rhetorical Fallacies. University of Texas at Austin, Undergraduate Writing Center. http://uwc.utexas.edu/wp-content/handouts/rhetorical- Fallacies.pdf 13