Representing Arguments

SMU Classification: Restricted
Representing
Arguments
Two ways of representing arguments
1. Arrow diagrams
2. Standard argument format (SAF)
Simple arguments
A simple argument is an argument with just one

inferential claim or one conclusion
Examples
A. A fetus is a person. Therefore, abortion is murder.
B. Willy is orca whale and whales are mammals. Therefore, Willy

is a mammal.
C. It will rain or snow. If it rains, the match will be cancelled. If it

snows, the match will be cancelled. Therefore, the match will
be cancelled.
Diagramming simple arguments

(1) A fetus is a person. Therefore, (2) abortion is murder.



Example: Joint premises

(1) Willy is orca whale and (2) whales are mammals.
Therefore, (3) Willy is a mammal.
+


Example
(1) It will rain or snow. (2) If it rains, the match will be cancelled. (3) If it
snows, the match will be cancelled. Therefore, (4) the match will be
cancelled.
++


Example
(1) Extremism in defense of liberty, or virtue, or whatever, is always a
vice, because (2) extremism is but another name for fanaticism, (3) which
is a vice by definition.
+


Independent premises
(1) A just society cannot possibly pay everyone the same income, since
(2) the aptitudes and efforts of individuals diverge dramatically, and since
(3) the common good is far better served, accordingly, by systematic
inequalities of reward.
   
   
  
Example
(1) Homework stifles the thrill of learning in the mind of the student. (2)
It instills an oppressive learn-or-else discipline. (3) It quenches the desire
for knowledge and the love of truth. For these reasons (4) homework
should never be assigned.
  


Joint or independent premises?
Let P1 and P2 be the premises for a conclusion C. If we take

away P1, can P2 still support C? And vice versa.
If the answer is YES, P1 and P2 are independent premises.

If the answer is NO, P1 and P2 are joint premises.
Joint or independent
(1) Singapore cannot do without immigrants. (2) There are not
enough workers in our economy and (3) there is a shortfall of babies
in our population.
 
 

Joint or independent?
(1) The Star-Wars program is our only realistic option for national defense in
the nuclear age. (2) Any defense program that relies on nuclear deterrence
raises the risk of nuclear war, and (3) that is not a realistic option for national
defense. (4) The Star-Wars program is the only option yet proposed that does
not rely on nuclear deterrence.
++


Joint or independent?
(1) Electric cars won’t sell. (2) They are too expensive, (3) their
range of operation is too limited, and (4) recharging facilities are not
generally available.
  
  

Exercise
Construct an argument for “Dolphins are not fish” that has the
following pattern:
+ +
 

Exercise
All
No fish
dolphins No dolphins
are warm- All fish
+
are warm- + have gills
blooded have gills
blooded
No dolphins
are fish
Complex arguments
A complex argument is an argument that has more

than one conclusion.
All complex arguments are made of simple

arguments.
Example
(1) There is a lot of pressure on untenured college teachers to dumb down
their courses. For (2) administrators tend to rehire teachers who bring in
more money, and (3) teachers who dumb down their courses do precisely
this.
+


Supporting a premise
Why is (3) true? I.e. why does dumping down courses bring in more
money?
Because (4) easier courses attract more students, and (5) more students
means more money for the school.
+


Putting it all together

(1) There is a lot of pressure on untenured college teachers to dumb
down their courses. [For] (2) administrators tend to rehire teachers
who bring in more money, and (3) teachers who dumb down their
classes do precisely this. And this is because (4) easier classes attract
more students, and (5) more students means more money for the
school.
Parts of a complex argument
 + 2, 4, 5 are basic premises


 + 3 is an intermediate premise
 or sub-conclusion
 1 is the main conclusion
Parts of a complex argument
 + There are two simple arguments in this

complex argument:
 A. (4,5) > 3
B. (2,3) > 1
 + The argument that has the main conclusion
 (argument B) is the main argument. The
other argument (argument A) is the sub-
 argument.
Simple or complex?
(1) Drug use is wrong because (2) it is immoral, and (2) it is
immoral, because (3) it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.





Example
Since (1) the rat is still alive, it appears that (2) it did not eat the apple.
For (3) if it had, it would not be alive, because (4) the apple was
poisoned.


+


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.

Diagram
  
  
+


Example
(1) The starter must be broken. (2) If the car won't start, then it's
either the starter, the alternator, or the battery that's the problem. (3)
It won't start. And (4) we've ruled out the alternator since (5) we just
put a new one in, and (6) it can't be the battery because (7) it's fully
charged.

Diagram

 
+++


Diagramming multiple arguments

A: (1) Nonhuman animals lack linguistic capacity, and, for this reason, (2) they
lack a mental or psychological life. Thus, (3) animals are not sentient. (4) If so,
then they cannot feel pain, contrary to appearances. Hence, (5) there can be no
moral duty not to hurt animals.
B: (6) I don’t agree with you, since (7) we do have proof that some animals have
at least some rudimentary language abilities. Furthermore, (8) even if animals are
not sentient as humans are, they can still feel pain. And another reason why we
ought not to hurt animals is that (9) it induces people to be cruel to other people.
A’s argument




+


B’s argument
 = we have a moral duty not to hurt animals.
  
  

Putting it together
A:  B:

   
 
+ 


The standard argument form (SAF)

1. Number the premises and conclusion and display them on
separate lines with the conclusion at the bottom.
2. Every line in an SAF must be a complete proposition.
3. Every inference to a conclusion must be indicated by a

conclusion indicator.
Example
Extremism in defence of liberty, or virtue, or whatever, is always a

vice, because extremism is but another name for fanaticism which is
a vice by definition.
1. All forms of extremism are forms of fanaticism.

2. All forms of fanaticism are vices.
3. > All forms of extremism are vices.
Example
The starter must be broken. If the car won't start, then it's
either the starter, the alternator, or the battery that's the
problem. It won't start. And we've ruled out the alternator
since we just put a new one in, and it can't be the battery
because it's fully charged.

First cut
1. If the car won't start, then it's either the starter, the alternator, or
the battery that's the problem.
2. The car won’t start won't start.
3. The alternator is not broken.
4. The battery is not dead.
5. > The starter is broken.
Fill in the reasoning

1. If the car won't start, then either the starter is broken, the alternator is
broken, or the battery is dead.
2. The car won’t start.
3. > Either the starter is broken, the alternator is broken, or the battery is
dead. (from 1,2)
4. The alternator is new
5. > The alternator is not broken (from 4)
6. The battery is fully charged.
7. > The battery is not dead. (from 6)
8. > The starter is broken. (from 3,5,7)
Diagram
+  
  
 +  + 


P because Q and R
Is abortion wrong?
Abortion is wrong because abortion kills innocent human

beings, and killing innocent human beings is wrong.
Developing an argument in SAF

1. All fetuses are living organisms composed of human DNA.
2. All living organisms composed of human DNA are human beings.
3. > All fetuses are human beings.
4. All fetuses are innocent.
5. > All fetuses are innocent human beings.
6. Abortion kills fetuses.
7. > Abortion kills innocent human beings.
8. All acts that kill innocent human beings are wrong.
9. > Abortion is wrong.
What we have covered today
1. Simple versus complex arguments

2. Basic premises, sub-conclusions, main conclusion.
3. Main argument versus sub-arguments
4. Joint and independent premises
5. How to diagram an argument
6. How to write an argument in standard argument form.

Representing Arguments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Representing Arguments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SMU Classification: Restricted

Two ways of representing arguments

A simple argument is an argument with just one

B. Willy is orca whale and whales are mammals. Therefore, Willy

C. It will rain or snow. If it rains, the match will be cancelled. If it

Diagramming simple arguments

Example: Joint premises

Joint or independent premises?

Let P1 and P2 be the premises for a conclusion C. If we take

If the answer is YES, P1 and P2 are independent premises.

A complex argument is an argument that has more

All complex arguments are made of simple

Putting it all together

Parts of a complex argument

 + 2, 4, 5 are basic premises

Parts of a complex argument

 + There are two simple arguments in this

(1) Government mandates for zero-emission vehicles won’t work

Diagramming multiple arguments

The standard argument form (SAF)

2. Every line in an SAF must be a complete proposition.

3. Every inference to a conclusion must be indicated by a

Extremism in defence of liberty, or virtue, or whatever, is always a

1. All forms of extremism are forms of fanaticism.

Fill in the reasoning

Abortion is wrong because abortion kills innocent human

Developing an argument in SAF

What we have covered today

1. Simple versus complex arguments

You might also like