SMU Classification: Restricted

LESSON TWO

Every argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. However, this is just the
most basic description of an argument. For an argument can be simple or complex, and
its premises can be related to its conclusion in different ways. An adequate method for
representing an argument must be able to capture the logical relations among the
various propositions of the argument. We will look at two ways of representing
arguments that are able do this, namely arrow diagrams and the standard argument
format.

Tools for analyzing the structures of arguments

Arrow diagrams

With arrow diagrams, it is possible to represent the internal relationships among the
propositions (premises and conclusions) in an argument. The basic unit in an arrow
diagram is this:

Premise

Conclusion
The premise(s) appears on top of the diagram and the conclusion at
the bottom. The arrow represents the inference from premise to conclusion.

Simple and complex arguments

An argument can be simple or complex. A simple argument is an argument with just

one inference and one conclusion, while a complex argument is one with more than one
conclusion. Simple arguments are the building blocks of all arguments. Let us start our
analysis with simple arguments.

Every simple arguments falls into one of two basic patterns.

Pattern 1: Arguments with joint premises

1
 SMU Classification: Restricted

The longest river in the world is the Nile and the Nile flows through Sudan.
Therefore, the longest river in the world follows through Sudan.
This argument consists of three propositions. To diagram this argument, we first assign
numbers to each of the propositions:

(1) The longest river in the world is the Nile and (2) the Nile flows through Sudan.
Therefore, (3) the longest river in the world follows through Sudan.

In this argument, each premise requires the other in order to support the conclusion. To
diagram an argument with joint premises, we add a “+” symbol between the numbers for
premises. The diagram for the argument looks like this:

(1) + (2)
↓
(3)

This diagram tells us the (1) and (2) are the premises and (3) is the conclusion.
Furthermore, it tells us that (1) and (2) are joint premises.

Example:

Voluntary decisions about death by definition presuppose freedom of choice

and freedom of choice entails the absence of freedom-limiting constraints.
Such constraints are almost always present in the case of the terminally ill.
Therefore, terminally ill patients usually cannot make a voluntary decision
about death

This argument has three premises which must be taken together to support the
conclusion. Again, before we can diagram the argument, we need to assign numbers to
the propositions in it:

(1) Voluntary decisions about death by definition presuppose freedom of choice and (2)
freedom of choice entails the absence of freedom-limiting constraints. (3) Such
constraints are almost always present in the case of the terminally ill. Therefore, (4)
terminally ill patients usually cannot make a voluntary decision about death

Below is the diagram for this argument:

2
 SMU Classification: Restricted

(1) + (2) + (3)

↓
(4)

Pattern 2: Arguments with independent premises

The earth’s mass distribution is continually subject to change. This is because

earthquakes alter the location of the tectonic plates, and also because the
liquid core sloshes as the earth turns.

In this argument, each of the premises is an independent reason for the conclusion, in
that they do not need each other to establish the conclusion. If we remove one premise
from the argument, this will not take away the support given by the other premise. The
words “and also” clearly indicates that the second premise is an additional reason.

(1) The earth’s mass distribution is continually subject to change. This is because (2)
earthquakes alter the location of the tectonic plates, and also because (3) the liquid
core sloshes as the earth turns.

To show that the premises provide independent support for the conclusion, we draw an
arrow from each premise to the conclusion. The diagram for the argument looks like
this:

(2) (3)
 
(1)

Example:

People should not be so ready to spend their money on bottled mineral water.
On a number of occasions, there have been health alerts about the chemical
found in bottled water. It is also absurdly expensive. In addition, tap water,
which is free, is improving in quality all the time.

(1) People should not be so ready to spend their money on bottled mineral water [ for
these reasons]. (2) On a number of occasions, there have been health alerts about the
chemical found in bottled water. (3) It is also absurdly expensive. (4) In addition, tap
water, which is free, is improving in quality all the time.

3
 SMU Classification: Restricted

In this argument, (2), (3) and (4) are independent premises for (1):

(2) (3) (4)

  
(1)
Joint vs Independent
 Does removing one of the premises support the conclusion?

E.g.
All fish have gills, but no dolphins have gills. All dolphins are warm blooded, but no fish
are warm-blooded. Thus, dolphins are not fishes.

A complex argument is an argument with more than one conclusion. Every complex
argument can be broken down into a series of simple arguments.

Parts of a complex argument:

1. Sub argument
2. Main argument/ conclusion

Example:

(1) The selling of human organs should be outlawed because (2) allowing
human organs to be sold will inevitably lead to a situation in which only the
rich will be able to afford transplants, and (2) this is so because (3) whenever
something scarce is bought and sold as a commodity, the price always goes
up.

This passage has two inference indicators. This means there are two distinct simple
arguments in the passage.

The first is:

(2)
↓
(1)

The second is:

(3)
↓
(2)

4
 SMU Classification: Restricted

These two arguments are connected by (2), which functions as a premise in the first
argument and a conclusion in the second. Joining the two arguments together, we have:

(3)
↓
(2)
↓
(1)

In a complex argument, we can distinguish two kinds of premises - those that are not
supported by other premises and those that are. We call the first kind of premises basic
premises, and the second kind sub-conclusions. The conclusion that is not a sub-
conclusion is the main conclusion of the argument. Every complex argument has just
one main conclusion. The simple argument that contains the main conclusion is the
main argument, and the rest are sub-arguments. In the diagram, (1) is the main
conclusion, (2) is a sub-conclusion and (3) is a basic premise. (2)  (1) is the main
argument and (3) → (2) is a sub-argument.

Example:

(1) Government mandates for zero-emission vehicles won’t work because (2)
only electric cars qualify as zero-emission vehicles, and (3) electric cars won’t
sell. (4) They are too expensive, (5) their range of operation is too limited, and
(6) recharging facilities are not generally available.

To diagram this argument, the first step is to identify the main conclusion. It is (1).

The next step is to identity the premises that directly support (1). They are (2) and (3)
and they must be taken together in order to support (1).

This gives us the main argument:

(2) + (3)

(1)

5
 SMU Classification: Restricted

(4), (5) and (6) are reasons why electric cars won’t sell, so they are premises for (3). As
each is an independent reason for (3), the diagram for the sub-argument is this:

(4) (5) (6)

  
(3)

Putting it all together, the diagram for the entire argument is as follows:

(4) (5) (6)

  
(2) + (3)

(1)

In this argument, (2), (4), (5) and (6) are basic premises, (3) is a sub-conclusion and (1)
is the main conclusion.

Example:

(1) The Big Bang theory is crumbling. (2) According to orthodox wisdom, the
cosmos began with the Big Bang-an immense, perfectly symmetrical explosion
20 billion years ago. The problem is that (3) astronomers have confirmed by
observation the existence of huge conglomerations of galaxies that are simply
too big to have been formed in a mere 20 billion years. Studies, based on new
data collected by satellite and backed up by earlier ground surveys, show that (4)
galaxies are clustered into vast ribbons that stretch billions of light years and
are separated by voids hundreds of millions of light years across. Because (5)
galaxies are observed to travel at only a small fraction of the speed of light,
mathematics shows that (6) such large clumps of matter must have taken at least
one hundred billion years to come together - five times as long as the time since
the hypothetical Big Bang. - Eric J. Lerner, "For Whom the Bang Tolls,'' New York
Times, 3 June 1991.

The diagram for the argument is as follows

(4) + (5)
↓
(6)

6
 SMU Classification: Restricted

↓
(2) + (3)
↓
(1)

The main conclusion of the argument is (1), and (1) is jointly supported by (2) and (3).
The main argument can be summarised as follows: (2) The BBT implies that the
universe is 20 billion years old, but (3) the universe could not have been formed in 20
billion years. Therefore, (1) the BBT cannot be true.

(3) is supported by (6): (6) Clumps of matter the size of the universe must have taken at
least 100 billion years to come together; therefore, (3) the universe could not have been
formed in 20 billion years.

(6) is jointly supported by (4) and (5): (4) galaxies are separated by voids hundreds of
millions of light years across, and (5) galaxies are observed to travel at only a small
fraction of the speed of light. Therefore, (6) such large clumps of matter must have
taken at least 100 billion years to come together
Limitations of the arrow diagram method

To diagram an argument, the argument must come properly packaged. That is, all the
premises and conclusions that make up the argument have to be present and contained
within a short passage. Arguments that are implicit (not fully expressed) or extended
(article or book length arguments) cannot be diagramed straight off the page. Here are
two examples of the first type.

Example 1:

There is no correct or incorrect in morals; you have yours and I have mine”.
This position, known as moral relativism, is quite ancient but became
fashionable at the turn of the century, as reports on the customs of societies
alien to those found in Europe became available. Ethical propositions, we are
asked to believe, are no more than statements of personal opinion and,
therefore, cannot carry absolute weight. The main problem with this position is
that ethical relativists are unable to denounce execrable ethical practices, such
as racism. On what grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's ideas on racial
purity? Are we to believe that he was uttering an ethical truth when advocating
the Final Solution?

7
 SMU Classification: Restricted

Example 2:

Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will
detonate at noon on July 4 unless ... here follow the usual demands for money
and release of his friends from jail. Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10
a.m on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the
bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign
him, millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject
the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be
for not doing so? I suggest there are none. In any case, I ask you to face the
question with an open mind.

Both of these passages contain an argument, but the premises and conclusions are not
any of the sentences in the passages. The first passage is an argument against moral
relativism; its conclusion is that moral relativism is false. The second passage is a case
for torture; its conclusion is that torture is sometimes morally permissible. To make
these arguments explicit, we will need to reconstruct them, and one way to do this is to
present the arguments in standard argument form.

The standard argument format (SAF)

It is often useful to rewrite an ordinary argument in prose in standard argument form. Do

so can improve the clarity of arguments by making their contents and structures fully
explicit.

To express an argument in standard argument form, write each premise and the
conclusion in a separate line with the premises on top and conclusion at the bottom.
Every premise and conclusion must be a complete proposition. Number the premises
and conclusion. Let look at some examples.

Example:

In spite of the popularity of the finite-world picture, however, it is open to a

devastating objection. In being finite, the world must have a limiting boundary,
such as Aristotle's outermost sphere. That is impossible, because a boundary
can only separate one part of space from another. This objection was put
forward by the Greeks, reappeared in the scientific skepticism of the early
Renaissance and probably occurs to any schoolchild who thinks about it
today. If one accepts the objection, one must conclude that the universe is

8
 SMU Classification: Restricted

infinite. - J. J. CALLAHAN, "The Curvature of Space in a Finite Universe," Scientific

American, August 1976

When writing arguments in SAF, it is important not to clutter the argument with
extraneous content. Keep it concise. Below is the main argument in SAF:

(1) If the world is finite, it must have a limiting boundary.

(2) It is not possible for the world to have a limiting boundary.
(3) > The world cannot be finite.

The passage also contains an argument for premise (2). It is as follows:

(1) No limiting boundary can encompass every part of space.

(2) For the world to have a limiting boundary, its limiting boundary must be able to
encompass every part of space.
(3) > It is not possible for the world to have a limiting boundary.

Putting the two arguments together, we get:

(1) No limiting boundary can encompass every part of space.

(2) For the world to have a limiting boundary, its limiting boundary must be able to
encompass every part of space.
(3) > It is not possible for the world to have a limiting boundary. (1, 2)
(4) If the world is finite, it must have a limiting boundary.
(5) > The world cannot be finite. (3, 4)

There are two inferences in this argument – at line 3 and line 5. The numbers on the
right of these lines shows the premises on which the inference is based. Thus, (1,2) on
line 3 means that sub-conclusion (3) is derived from premises (1) and (2), and (3,4) on
line 5 means that the main conclusion (5) is derived from premises (3) and (4).

Example:

Most parents want their children to have successful careers. Since education
is essential to success, it is the duty of parents to give children the best
possible education. Because it is also in the country’s economic interest to
have a highly educated population, the Government should help parents to
provide for their children’s education. Therefore all parents should receive
financial help towards the cost of their children’s education, so the low paid

9
 SMU Classification: Restricted

should receive tax credits and those who are better off should receive tax
relief.

This is a complex argument with three sub-arguments in addition to the main argument.
The argument in SAF is as follows:

(1) Parents want their children to have successful careers

(2) Education is essential to success
(3) > It is the duty of parents to give children the best possible education. (1,2)
(4) It is in the country’s economic interest to have a highly educated population.
(5) > The government should help parents to provide for their child’s education. (3,4)
(6) > All parents should receive financial help towards their child’s education. (3,5)
(7) > The low paid should receive tax credits and the better off tax relief (6)

Can you draw the diagram for the argument above?

Finally, let us reconstruct in SAF the two arguments on page 7. Here we are getting
ahead of ourselves, for reconstructing arguments is quite an advanced skill. Do not
worry if you cannot see how it is done. The topic will be covered in a later lesson. What
we are doing here is just to illustrate the usefulness of the SAF format.
The argument in example 1 is as follows:

(1) If moral relativism were true, then we would not be able to denounce the
execrable practices of others.
(2) We are able to denounce the execrable practices of others.
(3) > Moral relativism is not true.

The argument in example 2 is as follows:

(1) All situations in which torturing a terrorist is the only way to save millions of lives
are situations in which torture is morally permissible.
(2) Some possible situations are situations in which torturing a terrorists is the only
way to save millions of live.
(3) > Some possible situations are situations in which torture is morally permissible.
(In other words, torture is not always morally impermissible)

What you should know from this lesson:

 The difference between a simple and a complex arguments
 The difference between joint and independent premises
 The parts of a complex argument – basic premises, sub-conclusion, main 10
conclusion, sub-arguments, main-arguments
 How to diagram an argument
 How to rewrite an argument in SAF