Propositions and Arguments

Logic is the study of arguments.

The goal of logic is to give a theory of which arguments are good

and which are bad, and to explain what it is that makes arguments
good or bad.

Since this is our goal, we ought not understand ‘argument’ in such a

way that an argument has to be any good.

So, in this class, we’ll understand an argument to be any collection

of statements, one of which is presented as the conclusion, and the
others of which are presented as the premises.
An argument is a formally stated argument if and only if-

(1) all its sentences are statements (i.e., sentences that are true or false),

(2) all and only intended parts of the argument are explicitly stated,

(3) it has the format:

• all the premisses are listed first,
• next, an inference indicator (“therefore”),
• next, the conclusion is listed last.

(4) A formally stated argument may sometimes also be accompanied by a

full or partial demonstration that provides a number of intermediate
conclusions showing how the premisses are connected to the final
conclusion.
Inference Indicators
Conclusion indicators
so,
therefore,
thus,
hence,
consequently,
it follows that
we conclude that
from this we infer that

Premiss indicators
since
because
for
as
given that
it follows from
in consequence of
in light of the fact that
due to the fact that
Argument-
The earth is a big flat thing. And since big flat things are made
flat by powerful flatteners, it must have been God who
flattened the earth. God is, as we all know, very powerful.

The original argument here has the following order of parts:

The earth is a big flat thing. Premiss
Since big flat things are made flat by powerful flatteners, Premiss
it must have been God who flattened the earth. Conclusion
God is, as we all know, very powerful. Premiss

This argument is not arranged properly, since the conclusion is

in the middle! We must rearrange the argument into a formally
stated form:
1. The earth is a big flat thing. Premiss
2. Big flat things are made flat by powerful flatteners. Premiss
3. God is very powerful. Premiss
So, it was God who flattened the earth. Conclusion
The following passage lacks indicator words:

We must give up some privacy in the name of security.

If the homeland is not secure, terrorist
attacks orders of magnitudes larger than 26/11 will find
their way to our shores. No amount
of privacy is worth enduring an attack like this.
1. We must give up some privacy in the name of
security.
2. No amount of privacy is worth enduring an attack
orders of magnitude larger than 26/11.
3. So, if the homeland is not secure, terrorist attacks
like this will find their way to our shores.
1. We must give up some privacy in the
name of security.
2. If the homeland is not secure, terrorist
attacks orders of magnitude larger than
26/11 will find their way to our shores.
3. So, no amount of privacy is worth
enduring an attack like this.
1. If the homeland is not secure, terrorist
attacks orders of magnitude larger than 26/11
will find their way to our shores.
2. No amount of privacy is worth enduring an
attack like this.
3. So, we must give up some privacy in the
name of security.
Arguments and Explanations
 What is Non-Argument?

• Reports/ Stating Opinion

• Advice

• Warning

• Conditional

• Illustration

• Explication

• Explanation
• An argument is a rationale in which the reason
functions as evidence in support of the
conclusion.  Its purpose is to provide a rational
basis for believing the conclusion to be true. 

• An explanation is a rationale in which the

conclusion represents an accepted fact and the
reason represents a cause of that fact. Its
purpose is to help us understand how or why
that fact occurs
Functional Difference - If our aim is to establish the
truth of some proposition, Q, and we offer some
evidence, P, in support of Q, we may appropriately
say “Q because P.” In this case we are giving an
argument for Q, and P is our premise. Alternatively,
suppose that Q is known to be true. In that case we
don’t have to give any reasons to support its truth,
but we may wish to give an account of why it is true.
Here also we may say “Q because P”—but in this
case we are giving not an argument for Q, but an
explanation of Q.
Suppose you’re wondering whether it’s a good day for a bike ride. You
look outside and notice dark clouds. You check the weather forecast, rain
is predicted. You step outside and notice it’s quite chilly.

On the basis of these three pieces of information you decide not to go for
a bike ride today. We can show the structure of your reasoning as follows:

There are dark clouds.

It’s cold.
The forecast calls for rain.

----------------------------------
It’s not a good day for a bike ride.
Suppose your car won’t start. You want to
know why it won’t start. Is it a dead
battery? A bad starter? Cruel fate? You
look down at the dash and realize that your
headlight switch is in the full on position.
You remember that last night you used the
headlights after you parked the car to help
you find something in the garage.
You left the lights on.
Leaving the lights one will drain the battery.

A drained battery will prevent the car from

starting.

-----------------------------------------------------

That’s why your car won’t start.

Ask yourself, if this is an argument, what is its
conclusion? Once you’ve identified the potential
conclusion try to determine whether the author is
attempting to convince you that that sentence is true,
or whether the author assumes you agree with the
sentence and is trying to help you understand why or
how the sentence is true. If they are trying to convince
you, they are arguing. If they are trying to help you
get a deeper understanding, they are explaining.
In a way the French Revolution was more
ambitious [than the American]. It abolished all
legal privileges and sought to create a political
and social order based entirely on equality of
rights and opportunities. The Civil Code
guaranteed absolute equality before the laws of
property as well as freedom of contract (for
men, at any rate). (30)
This is an argument for why you should believe that
the French Revolution was more ambitious than the
American Revolution.

Premise: The French Revolution guaranteed absolute

equality before the laws as well as freedom of
contract (and the American Revolution did not) –at
least for men.

Premise: The French Revolution abolished all legal

privileges (and the American did not) –at least for
men.

Conclusion: The French Revolution was more

ambitious than the American Revolution.
• I have no interest in denouncing inequality or
capitalism per se –especially since social
inequalities are not in themselves a problem as long
as they are justified.

“Since” is either introducing a premise (a reason to

believe that he has no interest in denouncing
inequality or capitalism) or else an explanans (the
reason why he has no such interest).  Which do you
think it is?
Since history always invents its own pathways, the
actual usefulness of these lessons from the past
remains to be seen.

Is this explaining why the usefulness of these lessons

cannot be assessed today?  Or is it arguing that they
cannot be assessed today?  At any rate, “since” is the
key word.