Analyzing Arguments

To analyze an argument means to break it up into

various parts to see clearly what conclusion is
being defended and on what grounds.

Diagramming Short Arguments

Summarizing Longer Arguments
Diagramming Short Arguments
Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short
arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).

Six (6) basic steps:

1. Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and

conclusion indicators you see.
2. Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the
argument (Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.)
3. Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed
above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support.
Diagramming Short Arguments
4. Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of
flowchart that shows which premises are intended to
support which conclusions.
5. Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly
from the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to
support. Indicate linked premises by placing a plus sign
between each of the linked premises, underlining the
premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support
6. Put the argument’s main conclusion at the bottom of the
diagram.
Diagramming Short Arguments

TIPS
1. Find the main conclusion first.
2. Pay close attention to premise and conclusion
indicators.
3. Remember that sentences containing the word
and often contain two or more separate
statements.
Diagramming Short Arguments
4. Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and
disjunctive statements (either-or statements) as
single statements.
5. Don’t number or diagram any sentence that is not a
statement.
6. Don’t diagram irrelevant statements.
7. Don’t diagram redundant statements.
Diagramming Short Arguments
Diagram this argument.

Since Mary visited a realtor and her

bank’s mortgage department, she
must be planning on buying a home.
Diagramming Short Arguments
Identify each claim and note any indicator words that
might help identify premise(s) and conclusion(s).

Number each statement and note each indicator word.

Since (1) Mary visited a realtor and (2) her

bank’s mortgage department, (3) she
must be planning on buying a home.
 Diagramming Short Arguments
Since (1) Mary visited a realtor and (2) her bank’s mortgage
department, (3) she must be planning on buying a home.
Which of the claims is the conclusion? Which are premises?

(1) (2) (3)

Premise. Premise. Conclusion.
Note the
indicator word,
“Since.”
 Diagramming Short Arguments
Since (1) Mary visited a realtor and (2) her bank’s mortgage
department, (3) she must be planning on buying a home.

Use arrows to represent the intended

relationship between the claims.
(1) (2) In this case the premises are
independent. Even though the
combined force of both premises
(3) makes the argument stronger,
either premise could stand alone
in supporting the conclusion.
Diagramming Short Arguments
Sandra can’t register for her classes on Wednesday. After
all, Sandra is a sophomore and sophomore registration
begins on Thursday.
Identify each claim and note any indicator words that
might help identify premise(s) and conclusion(s).
Number each statement and note each indicator word.

(1) Sandra can’t register for her classes on

Wednesday. After all, (2) Sandra is a sophomore and
(3) sophomore registration begins on Thursday.
Diagramming Short Arguments
“After all” is generally
a premise indicator.

(1) Sandra can’t register for her classes on

Wednesday. After all, (2) Sandra is a sophomore
and (3) sophomore registration begins on
Thursday.

This “and” serves to join

two different claims.
Diagramming Short Arguments
Use arrows to show the relationships between
the claims in the argument.

Decide whether or linked.

the premises are
independent, (2) (+) (3)

(2) (3)

(1)

(1) These are linked premises

since both (in conjunction) are
necessary to prove the conclusion.
Diagramming Short Arguments
 (1) Jim is a senior citizen. So, (2) Jim probably doesn’t
like hip-hop music. So, (3) Jim probably won’t be going
to the Ashanti concert this weekend.
 (1)

 (2)

 (3)
Diagramming Short Arguments
 (1) Most Democrats are liberals, and (2) Senator AB is a
Democrat. Thus (3) Senator AB is probably is liberal.
Therefore, (4) Senator AB probably supports affirmative
action in high education, because (5) most liberals support
affirmative action in higher education.
Diagramming Short Arguments
 (1) Most Democrats are liberals, and (2) Senator AB is a
Democrat. Thus (3) Senator AB is probably is liberal.
Therefore, (4) Senator AB probably supports affirmative
action in high education, because (5) most liberals
support affirmative action in higher education.
 (1) + (2)

(3)+ (5)

(4)
Diagramming Short Arguments
 (1) Cheating is wrong for several reasons. First, (2) it will
ultimately lower your self-respect because (3) you can
never be proud of anything you got by cheating. Second,
(4) cheating is a lie because (5) it deceives other people
into think that you know than you do. Third, (6)
cheating violates the teacher’s trust that you will do your
own work. Fourth, (7) cheating is unfair to all the people
who aren’t cheating. Finally, (8) if you cheat in school
now, you’ll find it easier to cheat in other situations later
in life – perhaps even in your closer personal
relationships.
Diagramming Short Arguments
(3) (5)

(2) (4) (6) (7) (8)

(1)
Summarizing Longer Arguments
 The goal of summarizing longer arguments is to provide
a brief synopsis of the argument that accurately and
clearly restates the main points in the summarizer’s
own words.
Summarizing Longer Arguments
 The goal of summarizing longer arguments is to
provide a brief synopsis of the argument that
accurately and clearly restates the main points
in the summarizer’s own words.
Summarizing involves two skills:
 Paraphrasing
 Finding missing premises and conclusions
Summarizing Longer Arguments
A paraphrase is a detailed restatement of a
passage using different words and phrases. A
good paraphrase is:
 Summarizing Longer Arguments
Accurate It reproduces the author’s meaning fairly and without bias
and distortion.

Clear Clarifies what an argument is saying. It often translates

complex and confusing language into language that’s easier
to understand.
Concise It captures the essence of an argument, and strips away all
the irrelevant or unimportant details and puts the key points
of the argument in a nutshell.
Charitable It is often possible to interpret a passage in more than one
way. In such cases, the principle of charity requires that we
interpret the passage as charitable as the evidence
reasonably permits (e.g. clarifying the arguer’s intent in
ways that make the arguments stronger and less easy to
attack).
 Paraphrasing – Accurate
 Example:

 Original Passage:
 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of
which are essentially foreign to our concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be
unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes
of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or
enmities. (George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796)

 Paraphrase:
 Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For this
reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts for reasons
that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial ties that would get
us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of European politics.
Paraphrasing – Clear
 Example:
 Original:
 The patient exhibited symptoms of an edema in the
occipital-parietal region and an abrasion on the left
patella.

 Paraphrase:
 The patient had a bump on the back of his head and a
scrape on his left knee.
Paraphrasing – Concise
 Example:
 Original:
 The shop wasn’t open at that point of time, owing to the
fact that there was no electrical power in the building. (23
word)

 Paraphrase:
 The shop was closed then because there was no electricity
in the building. (13 words)
 Paraphrasing – Charitable
 Example:
 Original:
 Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to
smoke, you are endangering your health.

 Paraphrase:
 Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that greatly increases
the risk of getting lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke,
you are endangering your health.
 Finding Missing Premises and
Conclusions

 “The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger
at Burger King (BK).”
 (Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK)

 In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated for
different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing something,
etc).
 Finding Missing Premises and
Conclusions
 An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an
Enthymeme.

 Two (2) basic rules:

 Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions.
Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say – to reach
his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument must be
consistent with everything the arguer says.
 Be charitable.
Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a plausible way of
interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2) makes the argument as
good an argument as it can be.

Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated

arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
 Standardizing
To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called
Standardizing.

Standardizing consists of restating an argument in

standard logical form when each step in the argument
is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above
the conclusions they are claimed to support, and
justifications are provided for each conclusion
in the argument.
 Standardizing
Standardizing involves five (5) basic steps:
1. Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main conclusion (it
may be only implied) and any major premises and sub-conclusions.
Paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning
2. Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.
3. Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct logical order
(i.e., with the premises placed above the conclusions they are intended to
support).
4. Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).
5. Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In other words,
for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate in parentheses from
which previous lines in the argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is
claimed to directly follow.
Standardizing - Example
We can see something only after it has happened. Future events,
however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to
imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically
impossible.

The argument is lacking

a main conclusion.
Standardizing:
 Standardizing - Example
We can see something only after it has happened. Future events,
however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to
imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically
impossible.

The argument is lacking

a main conclusion.
Standardizing:
1. We can see something only after it has happened.
2. Future events have not yet happened.
3. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not
happened (from 1-2)
4. It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to
have happened.
5. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]
(From 3-4)
 Standardizing: Common Mistakes to
Avoid
Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid):

1. Don’t write in incomplete sentences.

2. Don’t include more than one statement per line.
3. Don’t include anything that is not a statement.
4. Don’t include anything that is not a premise or a
conclusion.
“Our very eyes are sometimes,
like our judgments, blind”
- Shakespeare
Evaluating Arguments
 In this chapter we use this tool kit of skills to tackle
the question: When is an argument a good one?
 We will also address an issue that is crucial in
argument evaluation, namely: When is it reasonable
to accept a premise as true?
 Finally, we will learn some powerful strategies for
refuting bad arguments.
Evaluating Arguments
 Arguments can be good or bad in various ways. To help
us understand what a
 good argument is from the standpoint of critical
thinking, we begin by spelling out a few things that a
good argument is not.
What “good argument” does not mean?
What “good argument” does not mean?
 Good argument does not mean “ agrees with my view”
- Mistake: confuse “good argument” with “argument
whose conclusion I agree with”
 It reflects the mind-set of someone who thinks, “I have
a monopoly on the truth. Anyone who disagrees with
me must be wrong.”
 Such an attitude makes it impossible to learn from
viewpoints that differ from one’s own and is
completely opposed to the spirit of critical thinking.
What “good argument” does not mean?
 Good argument does not mean “persuasive argument”.
 First, not all arguments are meant to persuade. Sometimes
the arguer is just “thinking out loud,” or giving examples
without any intention of persuading anybody.
 Second, bad arguments often persuade, whereas good
arguments often fall on deaf ears.
 In the years leading up to World War II, for example,
Hitler’s demagogic ravings convinced millions, whereas
Churchill’s well-founded warnings were largely ignored.
What “good argument” does not mean?
“Good Argument” Does Not Mean “Well-Written or
Well-Spoken Argument”
 We sometimes praise arguments for their literary or rhetorical
merit—their clarity, eloquence, organization, imaginativeness,
and the like.
 Some obviously bad arguments possess literary merit, whereas
some obviously good ones do not.
 A subtly deceptive political speech may be a masterpiece of
rhetorical skill and still be seriously flawed from the standpoint
of critical reasoning.
 An argument in, say, science or mathematics may be a perfectly
good argument but possess little or no literary merit.
Deductive argument evaluating

Deductive argument

valid invalid

Sound Unsound

A good argument, fundamentally, is an argument

that is either deductively sound or inductively cogent.
Deductive argument evaluating

Deductive argument

valid invalid

Sound Unsound

A good argument, fundamentally, is an argument

that is either deductively sound or inductively cogent.
Inductive argument evaluating
Inductive argument

strong weak

Cogent Uncogent

A good argument, fundamentally, is an argument

that is either deductively sound or inductively cogent.
Inductive argument evaluating
Inductive argument

strong weak

Cogent Uncogent

A good argument, fundamentally, is an argument

that is either deductively sound or inductively cogent.
Evaluating Arguments
What is a good argument?
The most important critical thinking standards are:
 Accuracy – Are all the premises true?
 Logical Correctness – Is the reasoning correct? Is the
argument deductively valid or inductively strong?
 Also, other critical thinking standards must be taken
into account, including clarity, precision, relevance,
consistency, completeness and fairness.

An argument that satisfies the relevant critical

thinking standards that apply in a particular
context.
Evaluating Arguments
General Guidelines (Key questions):
 Are the premises true?
 Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument
deductively valid or inductively strong?
 Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies (Chapter
7-8)?
 Does the arguer express his or her points clearly and
precisely?
 Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?
Evaluating Arguments
General Guidelines (Key questions):
 Are the arguer’s claims logically consistent? Do any
of the arguer’s claims contradict other claims made in
the argument?
 Is the argument complete? Is all relevant evidence
taken into account (given understandable limitations
of time, space, context and so on)?
 Is the argument fair? Is the arguer fair in his or her
presentation of the evidence and treatment of
opposing arguments and views?
WHEN IS IT REASONABLE TO ACCEPT A PREMISE?

In general, it is reasonable to accept and unsupported claim as

true when:
 The claim does not conflict with personal experiences that we
have no good reason to doubt,
 The claim does not conflict with background beliefs that we
have no good reason to doubt, and
 The claim comes from a credible source.

Women are smarter than Men!

Men gossip more than Women!
Women are better leaders than Men!
Men are more creative than Women!
WHEN IS IT REASONABLE TO ACCEPT A PREMISE?
1. Does the Claim Conflict with our Personal Experiences?
 People often place too much trust in their own observation and experiences.
 Personal experiences are often less reliable than we think. We need to be
aware that “believing” is often “seeing” and that things are not always as they
appear.
My dog is “as gentle as a kitten.” Got it!

Really?
WHEN IS IT REASONABLE TO ACCEPT A PREMISE?

Critical thinkers recognize that their beliefs, hopes, fears,

expectations, and biases can affect their observations.

For example:
 Children “see” monsters in the closet.
 Sports fans perceive referees as partial to the other team.
 Coffee drinkers who unwittingly drink decaffeinated coffee typically feel more
alert.
 Teachers who expect improvement from their students often “perceive” better
performance even when none exists. And love, as the adage says, is blind.
WHEN IS IT REASONABLE TO ACCEPT A PREMISE?

2.
Does the Claim Conflict with our Background
Beliefs?
 Background beliefs – A vast network of conscious and
unconscious convictions we use as a framework to assess
the credibility of claims that can’t be verified directly.
 The problem is that most of us place too much confidence in
the accuracy of our background beliefs.
 Consequently, if our backgrounds beliefs are unreliable, any
beliefs based on them will also be unreliable.
 Example: God  after life  behavour
Critical thinkers think very carefully about the beliefs they accept.
Never believe without sufficient evidence and never believe more
strongly than the evidence warrants. – Watchwords of the wise.
 Evaluating Arguments
2.
Does the Claim Conflict with our Background
Beliefs?
 Background beliefs – A vast network of conscious
and unconscious convictions we use as a framework
to assess the credibility of claims that can’t be
verified directly.
It was snowing in Kuala Lumpur last 31st
August.”
 “It was raining in Kuala Lumpur last 31st
August.”
Evaluating Arguments
3. Does the Claim Come from a Credible Source?
 Is the source a genuine expert or authority?
 Does the source speak in his or her area of expertise?
 Is the source biased or has some other motive to lie or mislead?
 Is the accuracy of the source’s personal observations or experiences
questionable?
 Is the source contained in a source that is generally unreliable (e.g. gossip
magazine) ?
 Has the source been cited correctly or has been quoted out of context?
 Is the issue one that can be settled by expert opinion?
 Is the claim made by the source highly improbable on its face?

Critical thinkers must ask, “Are all premises true?” and “Do the
premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?”
Refuting arguments
 To refute an argument is to defeat it – to show that
the premises do not provide good reasons to accept
the conclusion.
 There are two ways to refute an argument:
 (1) Show that a premise or a critical group of premises
is false or dubious
 (2) show that the reasoning is bad - that the
premises do not provide adequate logical support for
the conclusion.
Writing a critical essay
In small groups, write a critical essay to refute this argument (300 - 500 Words):
“Drugs like LSD and cocaine should be legal”.

Let’s face it, the “war on drugs” has failed. Legalizing drugs
would drastically reduce drug-related crime, alleviate prison
overcrowding, unclog the courts, and allow police to concentrate
on catching robbers and rapists, instead of petty dealers or
substance abusers. Plus, we could tax these legalized drugs and
use the money for more productive
purposes.