Tea c hing Phi losop hy 1 3:2 Ju n e 1 9 90 1 59

Help in Finding Missing Premises

MIKE DONN
New Orleans

While having an unusually difficult time trying to find missing premises

(crucial assumptions) for an argument, 1 developed a method which should
make this process easier. In what follows, 1 will introduce and explain the
method, present an informal justification for it, and demonstrate it with two
examples. To begin, 1 discuss what missing premises are and their role in
arguments for those j ust starting to get involved in the field of critical thinking.

Someone gives you an argument hoping to convince you of something.

How can you tell if you should be convinced? Psychological factors, no
doubt, play a part in persuasion: it is probably easier to accept an argument
for a conc1usion that you already agree with-regardless of the argument
in its favor; or you may be impressed with the credentials of the arguer. But
aside from these considerations, wouldn ' t it be nice i f there were some
method available which would enable us to distinguish the good arguments
from the bad? Such a method would ignore how palatable was the eonclu­
sion, in addition to how well-liked was its deliverer. There is such a
method; in faet there are many methods, and they are set forth in the many
reasoning, informal logie, and critical thinking texts currently on the mar­
ket. Nonetheless, e v e ry good (often referred to as sound) argument has true
premises and is a correct argument form. Determining the truth or falsity
of the premises is often a difficult task in itself, yet it is a completely
separate one from determining the correctness of an argument ' s form (va­
lidity). 1 will concentrate on this second chore.
What does valid mean? An argument has a valid form if (and only if) it
is impossible for the premises to be true and for the conc1usion to be false.
The " impossible" is a logical one: if one were to accept the premises yet
deny the conc1usion of a valid argument, a contradiction would ensue.
Notice that the premises of a valid argument do not have ta be true ; this is
an important point. Truth is separate from validity. However, if the prem­
ises of a valid argument were true, then the conclusion would also ha ve to
e Teaching Philosophy, 1990. AU rights reserved. 0145-5788/90/1302-0159$1.00
1 60 MIKE DONN

be true . There are formal methods for determining validity . One can trans­
late the argument into symbolic logic, and then apply a series of tests. The
drawbacks of this technique are numerous : it is time consuming, a knowl ­
edge o f formal logic i s required, and often there i s disagreement over how
best to translate each sentence of the argument into the logical formalism.
Therefore, more practical methods are needed.
Each of these practical (or informal) methods attempts to make an in­
complete (invalid) argument valid by filling in missing premises . There are
various techniques for finding missing premises, and the main purpose of
this paper is to introduce one such technique. But before doing so, 1 must
explain why an invalid argument must be ma de into a valid one before
critiquing it fully, and how missing premises can make it valid.
Missing premises may be true or may be false . If true, then it would have
been unjust to have rej ected the argument solely on the basis of being
invalid; the addition of missing premises might have made the argument
valid, moreover they may be true. So we might have had a val id argument
with true premises, which is a sound (good) argumento But, if the missing
premises turn out to be false, the result is a valid argument whose premises
are not aU true ; hence the argument cannot be sound. There is another way
to view this: missing premises are the unspoken assumptions that the
arguer is making. These assumptions may be innocuous, and were left out
of the argument due to carelessness, or they may be the very assumptions
which deserve to be questioned most.
Final1y, how do missing premises make an invalid argument valid? A
non-technical answer is difficult to give, and perhaps seeing an actual
example worked out, where missing premises are added to arguments,
would be most helpful. 1\\' 0 such examples will be developed later. Never­
theless, keep in m ind that missing premises help connect or link the prem­
ises already present in an argument to its conclusion.

II

It is often very difficult to find the missing premises of an argument;

however, there are various systems for doing so. The one 1 will develop is
simply an extension of a method presented in Reasons a nd A rguments, a
text by Gerald Nos ich. 1 While Nosich uses his method, referred to as the
scenario method, to help find missing premises, the way in which he does
so is different from the technique 1 will describe. To avoid confusion 1 will
not go into his use of the method, but rather use his idea of a scenario and
couple with it a few rules of my own .

Me chan ics of th e method:

1. Ask yourself "Is there a way (a scenario) in which 1 could accept

the premise(s) of the argument, while still denying its conclusion?"
 FINDING MI S SING PREMIS E S 161

2 . Write down such a scenario.

3. Look for the part in your scenario which is not present in the
original argumento
4. Underl ine that part.
5. Negate the underlined part. This will be a missing premise.
6 . Repeat steps one through five until you are unable to come up with
any scenarios in which the premise(s) could be true yet the conclu­
sion false.

Notice that the only essential steps are coming up with the scenario ( 1 ) , and
negating the appropriate part of it (5). 1 include the other steps for those
who may not catch on immediately .

Discussion o/ the method:

Step number one is the most important and most difficult part of the
method. It relies on imagination and c reativity. You must come up with a
scenario, alternately called a state of affairs or a possible world, in which
the premises of the argument are true while its conclusion is false. If you
are able to do so, then you know from the definition of validity that the
argument cannot be valid.
Regarding step number three: your scenario (from step 1 . ) will contain
various states of affairs. It is important that you single out only the state of
affairs that you thought up in you scenario that is not already stated in the
given premises of the argumento
The fifth step automatically gives the missing premise which corre­
sponds to the scenario you came up with in the first step.
Remember, for an a rgument to be valid there must be no cases, scenarios ,
or possible states of affairs in which the premises are true while the concIu­
sion is false. Step number six is included with this in mind. An argument
with even one missing premise will not be valid. Therefore, it is important
to try and find all the missing premises in a given argumento A word of
caution: j ust because you are unable to come up with a scenario in which
the premises of the argument are true while its conclusion is false, it does
not fol1ow that the argument is valid. (It may mean that you ha ve not been
imag inative enough. )
Finally, i t has been pointed out t o m e there i s a simpler way t o view my
strategy : try to think of a state of affairs in which the given argument would
not hold; the argument assumes that this state of affairs is not the case.

Justification o/ the method:

How and why does this five-step method work? Consider an invalid argu­
ment. This means that there is at least one scenario (state of affairs) in
which the premises are true while the conclusion is false . But by negating
the appropriate (appropriate to what the conclusion is) part of the scenario
1 62 MIKE DONN

we have ensured that it is not the case that that state of affairs exists in
which the premises are true while the conc1usion is false. If this is done for
each scenario, then it will follow that we have "blocked ofr' all possible
cases in which the premises are true yet the conc1usion false-and that ' s
the definition o f what i t i s for a n argument t o b e valid.
Unfortunately, there can be no proof that using this method will result in
a valid argument every time because human ingenuity is required to come
up with every possible scenario (step 1 .).

III
2
Example # 1 :
Premise 1 : Serious crimes shou ld be punished with the most severe punish­
ment possible.
Conclusion: Capital punishment should be the punishment for serious crimes.
Use of Method:
1. l think of a way that l can accept the premise yet still deny the conclusion
(which means that the argument cannot be valid as it stands) :
2. "Yes, l agree that serious crimes should be pun ished with the most severe
punishment poss ible, but maybe capital punishment is not the most severe
punishment possible" (thus l can reject the conclusion).
3. The part of the scenario in 2 . which is not i n the original argument is
.. . . . capital punishment is not the most severe punishment possible . "
4. l underline what l have in quotes in 3 . above: Capita l p u n ishment i s n o t the
m ost severe punishment possible.
5. Now l negate the underlined part : Capital punishment, is the most severe
punishment possible. (Th is has been identified as a missing premise. )
Comment:
Do you see how the missing premise "connects" the given premise to the
conclusion? (ln a valid argument, the connection already exists . ) Notice, in
this example we find that the missing premise is not innocuous or even true
(lifelong torture could be a much more severe form of punishment) .
Once you come up with the first step, the rest is easy ; just follow the steps
outlined above. The next example is a good deal more difficult. One hint is to
try and come up with a scenario (and subsequently a missing premise) for
each stated premise of the argumento If this can be accomplished, chances are
you will have made the argument valid. But do not be mislead; the number of
stated premises does not have to equal the number of missing premises .
Example #2 :
Premise 1 : Humans can survive and be healthy without eating meat.
Premise 2: Our current methods of raising food animals cause intense suffering.
Premise 3: This suffering cannot be justified by appeal to some greater good.
Conclusion: Those who eat meat should stop .
Before using the method, some preliminary comments are needed , especially
for those not yet adept at analyzing arguments.
 FlNDING MISSING PREMISES 1 63

Th is is a confusing argument because while each premise is plausible and so

is the conclusion, the stated premises offer no logical support for the conclu­
sion. It is as if someone were to argue MIt is important to eam suffi cient money
to obtai n what you want i n l ife, therefore go to college. " Each statement is
reasonable, but there is no connection shown between the sole prem ise and
the conclusion.
Another problem with example nu mber two is that the eonclusion may be
interpreted in either of two ways. Is the conclusion directed at any individual
who eats meat or at a society as a whole (sueh as ours) that eats meat? l opt
for the latter interpretation; I believe it will be more instruetive.
Use of method (with steps combined) :
1 . & 2. It is 10gicalIy possible that even if everyone stopped eating meat the
animals would still suffer; thus I have a way out of having to accept the
eonclusion. For if everyone stopped eating meat yet the animals still suffered,
it wouldn 't fol low that everyone should stop eating meat.
3. & 4 . /f e veryone stopped eating meat, then the animals would still suffer.
5 . If everyone stopped eating meat, then the animals would not stiII suffer.
Comment
Th is (5 .) is the eentral missing premise. It is also quite believable. Here i s an
instanee where the missing premise was most I i kely left out due to eareless­
ness or a laek of knowledge about constructing arguments . However, another
missing premise is needed to make the argument valid. Why ? It may be
insightful to reason as follows : with the first missing premise we have eon­
nected why everyone should stop eating meat. But we still need to tie in our
current methods of raising food animals to the eonclusion .
Use of method a g a i n :
1 . & 2 . My scenario i s thi s : O u r current methods of ra ising food animals are
not the only available ones. We could pamper food animals a l l their life­
until we painlessly slaughter them. This gets me out of having to aecept the
conclusion, while stiII accepting the prem ises .
3 . & 4. Our current methods ofraisingfood animals are not the only available ones.
5. Our current methods of raising food animals are the only available ones.
Comment
The extra effort i n constructing another missing premise has paid off wel l .
This missing premise ( 5 . ) is false: we could painlessly slaughter food animals
after rearing them in luxury .
At this point I must admit that I spent a great deal of time searehing for a third
missing premise. The first premise still needs to be linked to the eonclusion.
I will briefl y deseribe my search using the five-step method as a guide. In
what follows, keep in mind that a scenario only has to be 10gicalIy possible,
possible in principle, not physicalIy possibl e .
Despite the faet that humans can survive and be healthy without eating meat,
what if there were other, more important eonsiderations which would dictate
that even though we do not need meat for our health or survival, we shou ld,
nonetheless, still eat meat? What I had in mind was the folIowing logically
1 64 MIKE DONN

possible seenario (steps 1 . & 2.): Suppose we eame to find out that for reasons
we do not understand, unless we eontinue to slaughter and eat food animals
exaetly as we do now, these animals would emit a toxie substanee from their
bodies that would wipe out all life on earth (including the Iives of animals).
Somehow our digestive system neutra lizes this potentially lethal poison.
Therefore, we eould still aeeept the premises of the argument yet rejeet the
eonclusion (beeause under this seenario all those who eat meat shouldn 't
stop) . After isolating the part of my seenario that did not appear in the original
argument (step 3.) and negating that part (step 5.), the missing premise
beeomes "Even though humans ean survive and be healthy without eating
meat, there are no other, more important eonsiderations that would dictate
that we should eontinue to eat meat." (Verify this on your own if you do not
see how 1 arrived at it.) S inee in our aetual worId, the seenario sketehed above
does not hold (animals do not emit any fatal toxins if not eaten) thi s final
miss ing premise seems, initially, to be true. Df eourse ethical questions ean
be raised about this premise: were the entire meat industry suddenly to come
to a halt, many people would 10se their jobs; would this not eonstitute "a more
important consideration"?-I don 't know, but anyway, it is a separate matter.
Dne additional comment about this last missing premise. At first, after 1 had
found it, 1 thought that it was not neeessary. 1 incorreetly believed it said the
same thing as premise number three. But there is an important differenee: the
third premise says that the anima1 suffe ring that eurrently oeeurs cannot be
justified by an appeal to some greater good ("other considerations"), whereas
the final missing premise states that the aetual eating of food animals cannot
34
be warranted on the basis of other considerations (Kgreater good,,). .

Notes
1 . Nosieh, Gerald M. Reasons and A rguments. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1 98 2 .
2 . Nosieh 2 1 1 .
3 . 1 am indebted to Gerald Nosieh; my former teaeher and a true friend.
4. For a semi-formal treatment of finding missing premises which is similar to the
informal treatment given in this paper see Nelson Pole, "Enthymemes in Proposi­
tional Logic," Teaching Philosophy 3:3 (Spring 1 980): 325-330. For a discussion on
how to choose among missing premises see John NoIt, lnformal Logic: Possible
Worlds and lmagination. New York: McGraw-HiII , 1 984.
Mike Donn. 616 Esplanade Ave. , Apt. A , New Orleans, Louisiana 701 1 6 USA