Chapter 8: Recognizing Arguments

1. Chapter 8:Recognizing Arguments

2. Premise Indicators (pp. 58-59) • Some words tend to show that a statement is a premise of an argument. • Premise indicators include: since, for, because, given (that), due to, inasmuch as, as, assuming (that), insofar as, *may be deduced from, *is shown by, *is entailed by, * may be derived from (Conclusions precede starred indicators.)

3. Conclusion Indicators (p. 59) • Some words tend to show that a statement is the conclusion of an argument. • Conclusion indicators include: thus, therefore, so, consequently, wherefore, ergo, we may conclude that, it follows that, it is entailed that, we may infer that, accordingly, whence, it follows that, *is a reason to believe that, *is a reason to hold that, *is evidence that, *implies that, *means (that). (Premises precede starred indicators.)

4. Indicator Words and Truth (p. 60) • As indicator words they assume the phrase ‘it is true that’. • The Faraday passage in Chapter 5 uses many of the indicator words in the context of an explanation. • Some words have uses that have nothing to do with arguments or explanations. • ‘Since’ can show time. • ‘For’ can indicate a gift or dedication.

5. When Elements are Missing (pp. 61-62) • When indicator words are absent • Find the conclusion and ask, “What reasons are given for me to accept the conclusion as true?” • The order in which the premises and conclusion are presented is irrelevant.

6. When Elements are Missing (pp. 61-62) • When premises or the conclusion is unstated (enthymemes) • Arguments that are not completely stated sometimes have greater rhetorical force. • Arguments that are incompletely stated sometimes hide the fact that the unstated premise is false. • You should always ask whether there is a context in which the unstated premise would be true.

7. Distinguishing arguments from explanations (pp. 62-63) • Premises are known or assumed before the conclusion is known. • In an explanation the explanandum is always known before the explanans. • “I did such-and-such because …” is almost always an explanation. • “I believe such-and-such because …” can be either an explanation or an argument.

8. Distinguishing Inductive from Deductive Arguments (pp. 64-65) • Can adding a premise strengthen the evidence for the conclusion? • If adding a premise of the same level of generality will strengthen the argument, the argument is inductive. • The inductive/valid deductive distinction is exclusive and exhaustive. Nonetheless, by suggesting that there is a missing premise, you can convert what would otherwise be an inductive argument into a valid deductive argument (although its premises might not be true). Any inductive argument can be converted into a valid deductive argument by assuming a conditional (if … then …) statement in which the antecedent (if clause) is a conjunction of the premises and the consequent (then clause) is the conclusion.

9. The Principle of Charity (pp. 66-67) • Always state another person’s argument in the strongest way the verbiage will allow. • Being “charitable” in this way allows you to avoid being charged with the straw person fallacy (Chapter 29). • This is not an “anything goes” principle. If you have to bend over backwards to show that the argument is plausible, you are giving an implicit criticism of the manner in which the argument is stated.