Introduction to Argument Mapping & Critical Thinking

2012 James Wallace Gray

1
Table of Contents
Part I: Introduction to critical thinking......................................................................................................5
Chater 1: Why critical thinking is imortant.......................................................................................!
"1.1# $earning to %e more rational....................................................................................................!
"1.2# &a'ing %elie(s that are likely true............................................................................................)
"1.*# +'oid %eing maniulated %y others..........................................................................................)
Chater 2: What are arguments,...........................................................................................................-
"2.1# Why do arguments e.ist,.........................................................................................................-
"2.2# /hree e.amles o( good arguments.......................................................................................10
"2.*# /hree e.amles o( %ad arguments..........................................................................................10
"2.0# 1on2t arguments make eole angry,....................................................................................11
Chater *: Concets related to argumentation....................................................................................1*
Chater 0: 3ther concets related to critical thinking.........................................................................1!
Chater 5: What +re Good +rguments,..............................................................................................22
"5.1# We can gi'e uncontro'ersial e.amles o( good arguments...................................................22
"5.2# Good arguments must not %e (allacious.................................................................................2*
"5.*# Good arguments are rationally ersuasi'e.............................................................................2*
"5.0# /he remises o( good arguments are su((iciently 4usti(ied....................................................20
"5.5# /he conclusion o( good arguments are likely true gi'en the assumtion that the remises are
true..................................................................................................................................................20
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................25
Chater 5: &o6 to &a'e + 7ational 1e%ate........................................................................................2!
"5.1# 8urden o( roo(......................................................................................................................2!
"5.2# 9uorting arguments............................................................................................................2!
"5.*# 3%4ections..............................................................................................................................2)
"5.0# Good arguments.....................................................................................................................2-
Chater !: Parahrasing : Clari(ying +rguments..............................................................................*0
"!.1# Charita%le arahrasing.........................................................................................................*0
"!.2# /ransitional 6ords..................................................................................................................*1
"!.*# ;.ressi'e : in(ormati'e meaning .......................................................................................*2
"!.0# $oaded language ...................................................................................................................**
"!.5# +m%iguity .............................................................................................................................**
"!.0# <agueness ..............................................................................................................................**
Part II: Introduction to argument mas....................................................................................................*5
Chater ): ;.amles o( argument mas..............................................................................................*5
").1# /he di((erence %et6een remises and conclusions................................................................*5
").2# /he di((erence %et6een multile arguments and multile remises......................................01
").*# /he di((erence %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections..............................................02
Chater -: +rgument ma errors.........................................................................................................05
"-.1# What are argument ma errors,.............................................................................................05
"-.2# ;.amles o( argument ma errors.........................................................................................05
"-.*# Practice correcting argument ma errors...............................................................................50
Chater 10: 1ra6ing argument mas %y hand....................................................................................!0
Chater 11: &o6 to make your o6n argument mas..........................................................................!*
2
"11.1# =ultile suorting arguments (or a single conclusion.......................................................!*
"11.2# + single suorting argument 6ith multile remises.........................................................!5
"11.*# =ultile o%4ections against a single conclusion...................................................................!)
"11.0# + single o%4ection 6ith multile remises...........................................................................)0
Chater 12: Practice making your o6n argument mas......................................................................)0
Part III: =aking distinctions 6ith argument mas...................................................................................-*
Chater 1*: 1istinguishing remises (rom conclusions......................................................................-0
"1*.1# ;.amles o( distinguishing remises (rom conclusions......................................................-0
"1*.2# Practice distinguishing %et6een remises and conclusions...............................................10*
Chater 10: &o6 to distinguish %et6een multile remises and multile arguments......................11*
"10.1# Why the distinction %et6een multile remises and multile arguments is imortant.. . . .11*
"10.2# &o6 to make the distinction..............................................................................................110
"10.*# ;.amles o( distinguishing multile remises (rom multile arguments..........................115
"10.0# Practice distinguishing multile remises (rom multile arguments.................................120
Chater 15: &o6 to distinguish %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections...............................12-
"15.1# What are suorting arguments and o%4ections,...............................................................12-
"15.2# Why is this distinction imortant,.....................................................................................12-
"15.*# &o6 to make the distinction..............................................................................................1*1
"15.0# ;.amles o( distinguishing %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections......................1*2
"15.5# Practice distinguishing suorting arguments (rom o%4ections.........................................1*5
Chater 15: 1istinguishing %et6een o%4ections to conclusions> remises> and (orms o( reasoning.100
"15.1# &o6 to make the distinction..............................................................................................10-
"15.2# ;.amles o( distinguishing %et6een o%4ections against remises and conclusions..........10-
"15.*# Practice distinguishing %et6een o%4ections against remises and conclusions.................150
Part I<: <alidity......................................................................................................................................150
Chater 1!: Introduction to logical 'alidity......................................................................................155
"1!.1# $ogical soundness..............................................................................................................1!0
Chater 1): ?ot all 'alid arguments are good...................................................................................1!1
"1).1# ;.amles o( distinguishing %et6een good and %ad 'alid arguments................................1)1
"1).2# Practice identi(ying %ad 'alid arguments...........................................................................1))
Chater 1-: Countere.amles to in'alid arguments.........................................................................1-5
"1-.1# What are countere.amles to in'alid arguments,.............................................................1-5
"1-.2# &o6 to create countere.amles.........................................................................................1-5
"1-.*# &o6 to create o%4ections using countere.amles..............................................................1-!
"1-.0# ;.amles o( making countere.amles..............................................................................1--
"1-.5# Practicing making countere.amles..................................................................................205
Part <: In(ormal (allacies.......................................................................................................................225
Chater 20: @allacies o( rele'ance....................................................................................................22!
"20.1# 7ed herring.........................................................................................................................22!
"20.2# 9tra6 man..........................................................................................................................2*0
"20.*# +eal to authority.............................................................................................................2**
Chater 21: @allacies o( 6eak induction...........................................................................................2*5
"21.1# &asty generaliAation...........................................................................................................2*5
"21.2# +eal to ignorance...........................................................................................................2*)
"21.*# 9liery sloe.....................................................................................................................202
Chater 22: @allacies o( resumtion................................................................................................205
*
"22.1# 8egging the Buestion..........................................................................................................205
"22.2# @alse dilemma....................................................................................................................20)
"22.*# +ccident.............................................................................................................................251
"22.0# 3neCsidedness....................................................................................................................250
Chater 2*: @allacies o( language.....................................................................................................25!
"2*.1# ;Bui'ocation......................................................................................................................25!
"2*.2# Continuum..........................................................................................................................251
Chater 20: ;.amles o( identi(ying : o%4ecting to in(ormal (allacies...........................................250
Chater 25: Practice identi(ying : o%4ecting to in(ormal (allacies...................................................2)-
Part <I: @inding and e.amining arguments...........................................................................................*15
Chater 25: Identi(ying arguments....................................................................................................*1!
"25.1# ;.amles o( identi(ying arguments...................................................................................*1)
"25.2# Practice identi(ying arguments...........................................................................................*20
Chater 2!: @inding remises and conclusions.................................................................................*25
"2!.1# ;.amles o( identi(ying remises and conclusions...........................................................*2)
"2!.2# Practice identi(ying remises and conclusions..................................................................**2
Chater 2): @inding hidden assumtions..........................................................................................*02
"2).1# ;.amles o( (inding hidden assumtions..........................................................................*0*
"2).2# Practice (inding hidden assumtions..................................................................................*50
Works Cited............................................................................................................................................*5*
0
Part I: Introduction to critical thinking
Critical thinking re(ers to our a%ility to think a%out comle. ideas> to think (or oursel'es> to %e a%le to
criticiAe arguments and %elie(s 6ell> and to %e a%le to understand ho6 arguments (unction.
Why 6ould anyone 6ant to learn a%out critical thinking, +t the 'ery least 6e 6ant to learn a%out
critical thinking i( 6e 6ant to %e more rational> to ha'e %elie(s that are likely true> and to kno6 ho6 to
a'oid %eing maniulated %y others. +lthough 6e don2t kno6 e'erything a%out 6hat it means to %e
rational at this time> 6e do kno6 a lot a%out 6hat it means to %e rational. Critical thinking can hel us
understand minimal standards (or creating good arguments> and argumentation can hel us %etter
understand 6hat it means to use our a%ility to reason 6ell.
/his %ook co'ers elementary critical thinking concets and rinciles> so no rior critical thinking
education is necessary to understand this %ook. /his %ook aroaches critical thinking 6ith a (ocus on
argument maing. +rgument mas are used to clari(y our thinking> imro'e our arguments> and (ind
the (la6s o( arguments. +ll o( this hels us imro'e our critical thinking.
+n e.amle o( an argument is the (ollo6ingDEWe kno6 the ;arth is round %ecause 6e2'e seen
ictures o( it (rom outer sace and 6e can see that it2s round.F
+n argument ma o( the a%o'e argument is the (ollo6ing:
3ne reason that this %ook (ocuses on argument maing is %ecause there2s e'idence that argument
maing is reBuired (or the most e((ecti'e critical thinking education. +ccording to a metaCanalysis
conducted %y Claudia =arGa Hl'areA 3rtiA> E+rgument =aing courses are %y (ar the most e((ecti'e
6ay to imro'e Icritical thinkingJ skillsF 6hen comared to other classes that are %eing taught.
1
Part 1 o( this %ook 6ill resent a discussion concerning the (ollo6ing:
1 Claudia =arGa Hl'areA 3rtiA. Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? "200!. Rationale. +usthink.com. We%.
25 June 2012.# 100.
5
1. Why critical thinking is imortant.
2. /he concet o( argumentation.
*. Concets related to argumentation.
0. 3ther concets related to critical thinking.
5. What are good arguments,
5. What is rational de%ate,
!. Parahrasing : clari(ying arguments
5
Chapter 1: Why critical thinking is important
+t the 'ery least> critical thinking is imortant %ecause it hels us kno6 ho6 to %e more rational> to
%etter kno6 ho6 to ha'e %elie(s that are likely true> and to kno6 ho6 to %etter a'oid %eing maniulated
%y others. ;'eryone already kno6s a little a%out 6hat it means to %e rational> ho6 to (orm likely true
%elie(s> and so onK and e'eryone has some caacity to think critically already. &o6e'er> there is a
systematic 6ay that eole can learn to imro'e their critical thinking skills> and those skills can also
%e imro'ed through ractice.
(1.1 !earning to be more rational.
=any o( us 6ant to kno6 6hat 6e should %elie'e. We raise eole (or %eing oenCminded> and 6e
criticiAe eole (or %eing closeCminded. +rguments are attemts to tell eole 6hy they should %elie'e
something. @or e.amle> it 6ould %e irrational to think the ;arth isn2t round a(ter 6e ha'e tra'eled
around the 6orld and taken ictures o( it (rom outer sace. /hose are 'ery strong reasons to %elie'e it is
round. Peole 6ho are oenCminded 6ould %e ersuaded %y this argument> %ut eole 6ho are closeC
minded might not. Critical thinking can hel us %e more aroriately oenCminded and sketicalK and
it can hel us a'oid %eing inaroriately closeCminded and gulli%le.
Appropriately open-minded
Critical thinking can hel us kno6 ho6 to %e more aroriately oenCminded. We should %e oenC
minded enough to %elie'e conclusions 6hen there are good enough arguments gi'en (or them> and
critical thinking hels us understand 6hat makes a good argument. @or e.amle> 6e should %e oenC
minded to the conclusion that bread will be usually nutritious rather than poisonous in the future
considering that %read has usually %een nutritious rather than oisonous throughout human history.
Appropriately skeptical
Critical thinking can hel us kno6 ho6 to %e more aroriately sketical. We should %e sketical o(
conclusions 6hen there are good reasons to think they are (alse> and critical thinking can hel us
understand 6hen there are good reasons to think a conclusion is (alse. @or e.amle> 6e should %e
sketical o( the conclusion that etraterrestrial aliens are visiting the !arth considering that it 6ould
likely 'iolate the la6s o( hysics to 'isit another lanet in a reasona%le amount o( time.
Inappropriately gullible
Critical thinking can hel us kno6 ho6 to a'oid %eing gulli%le. Critical thinking hels us understand
6hen an argument is good enough to 6arrant our %elie(. I( 6e %elie'e something 6e learn a%out 6hen
6e ha'e %etter reasons not to> then 6e are %eing inaroriately gulli%le. @or e.amle> consider a
salesman 6ho is selling %ottles o( snake oil (or one thousand dollars each and claims that snake oil can
cure all o( our ills. We 6ould %e gulli%le to trust the salesman %ecause there2s a good chance that he is
trying to make a Buick %uck %y lying to eole> and 6e 6ould e.ect to (ind out that snake oil has such
!
6onder(ul medicinal roerties (rom a more reuta%le source.
Inappropriately close-minded
Critical thinking can hel us a'oid %eing inaroriately closeCminded. I( 6e aren2t 6illing to change
our mind 6hen 6e are gi'en a su((iciently good reason to re4ect something 6e %elie'e> then 6e are
%eing inaroriately closeCminded. @or e.amle> eole 6ho %elie'e that (airies e.ist are likely closeC
minded i( they (ind out that there2s no e'idence o( (airies and that Aoologists re4ect the e.istence o(
(airies> %ut they continue to %elie'e in (airies any6ay.
(1." #a$ing beliefs that are likel% true.
=any eole 6ant to kno6 6hat2s true and they 6ant to %elie'e 6hat2s true> %ut they o(ten (ail to
understand 6hen the e'idence indicates that something is ro%a%ly true or (alse. + %etter gras o(
critical thinking can hel us make the distinction %et6een 6hich %elie(s are likely true and 6hich ones
aren2t. In articular> arguments can %e used to kno6 i( %elie(s are ro%a%ly true or not. @or e.amle>
someone might think that it"s never unhealthy to eat do#ens of potato chips %ased on the (act that it2s
not unhealthy to eat one> t6o> or three o( them. /his reasoning rocess has (ailed to relia%ly gi'e the
erson a true %elie(. 9ometimes things are healthy in moderation> %ut not in e.cess.
(1.& A$oid being manipulated b% others.
=any eole 6ant to maniulate us> and critical thinking can hel us a'oid %eing maniulated. =any
eole call this the E89CdetectionF element o( critical thinking. =any eole try to ersuade us to %uy
their roducts> to 4oin their cult> to 'ote (or certain oliticians> and so onK and the ersuasion in'ol'ed
could reBuire us to think uncritically. When 6e learn to identi(y good arguments that gi'e us a good
reason to %elie'e something and to identi(y %ad arguments that (ail to do so 6e also learn a%out good
and %ad reasoning rocesses. /his hels us identi(y 6hen someone 6ants us to reason oorly. @or
e.amle> someone could tell us to %uy a %racelet that 6ill gi'e us good luck and try to ro'e it gi'es us
good luck through se'eral testimonials. &o6e'er> the (act that many eole e.erience good luck 6hen
using a %racelet doesn2t ro'e it really does gi'e eole good luck. =ay%e the eole 6ould ha'e
e.erienced good luck> e'en i( they didn2t 6ear the %racelet.
)
Chapter 2: What are arguments?
3ne o( the most imortant concets related to critical thinking is that o( argumentation. +n argument is
a grou o( t6o or more statements 6ith one or more statements "the remises# that are suosed to
4usti(y another statement "the conclusion#. +n e.amle o( a good argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. +ll men are mortal.
2. 9ocrates is a man.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is mortal.
In this case the (irst t6o statements are remises and the last statement is a conclusion. /he conclusion
is 4usti(ied %ecause 6e kno6 the (irst t6o statements are true. It 6ould %e imossi%le (or the conclusion
to %e (alse recisely %ecause 6e kno6 the remises are true.
?ot all arguments are good. @or e.amle> the (ollo6ing is a nonrational argument:
1. +ll men are mortal.
2. 9ocrates is mortal.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a dog.
In this case the the remises do not 4usti(y the conclusion. 8ased on the remises> 9ocrates could %e a
cat> a man> or any num%er o( other creatures that are mortal. /he remises do not resent us 6ith
su((icient in(ormation to reach the conclusion.
/his chater 6ill include a discussion a%out the (ollo6ing:
1. Why arguments e.ist.
2. ;.amles o( good arguments.
*. ;.amles o( %ad arguments.
0. Why arguments make eole angry.
(".1 'h% do arguments e(ist)
It can o(ten %e use(ul to consider the reason that an argument e.ists. + common reason to resent an
argument is (or rational persuasion$to con'ince someone that something is true %ecause the %elie( is
su((iciently 4usti(ied.
+rguments can %e meant to ans6er 'arious Buestions> such as the (ollo6ing:
1. &o6 do you kno6,
2. Why should I agree,
*. Why is that %elie( 4usti(ied,
0. What2s the e'idence in suort o( that %elie(,
-
;'en so> 6e must kee in mind that some arguments are also used to maniulate eole. @or e.amle>
a commercial could resent an argument that a %eer roduct 6ill %ring us more time 6ith (riends in the
hoe that it 6ill increase their sales> e'en though the %eer roduct might ha'e no chance o( doing such
a thing.
("." Three e(amples of good arguments
Good arguments are rationally ersuasi'e. /hey gi'e us a good reason to %elie'e the conclusion is true.
I( an argument is su((iciently good> then 6e should %elie'e the conclusion is true. ;.amles o( good
arguments include the (ollo6ing:
Example 1
1. ?o (ish are 6armC%looded.
2. +ll 6hales are 6armC%looded.
*. /here(ore> no 6hales are (ish.
Example 2
1. I( using atomic %om%s on human %eings kills them> then "at minimum# 6e generally shouldn2t
use atomic %om%s on human %eings.
2. Lsing atomic %om%s on human %eings kills them.
*. /here(ore> "at minimum# 6e generally shouldn2t use atomic %om%s on human %eings.
Example 3
1. Peole 6ho make mistakes 6ithout realiAing they are making mistakes are more likely to
continue to make similar mistakes.
2. Peole 6ho are closeCminded are less likely to realiAe they are making mistakes.
*. We should generally 6ant to sto making mistakes.
0. 9o> i( eole 6ho are closeCminded are less likely to realiAe they are making mistakes> then 6e
should try not to %e closeCminded.
5. /here(ore> 6e should try not to %e closeCminded.
(".& Three e(amples of bad arguments.
Example 1
1. +ll retiles are animals.
2. +ll liAards are retiles.
*. /here(ore> no liAards are animals.
10
In this case 6e kno6 all liAards are animals> so the conclusion is (alse. /he remises do not gi'e us a
reason to think the conclusion is true. In (act> 6e could conclude that all liAards are animals (rom these
remises.
Example 2
1. Peole 6ho are gulli%le are more likely to %elie'e lies.
2. We should al6ays 6ant to %elie'e lies.
*. /here(ore> 6e should 6ant to %e gulli%le.
In this case the conclusion 6ould %e true i( the remises 6ere true. &o6e'er> one remise is %latantly
(alseD6e kno6 it2s (alse that 6e should al6ays 6ant to %elie'e lies. 3nly %ad arguments contain
%latantly (alse remises.
Example 3
1. I( shooting eole 6ith machine guns o(ten causes them to die> then 6e ha'e a reason to think
that shooting eole 6ith machine guns is generally morally 6rong.
2. 9hooting eole 6ith machine guns o(ten causes them to die.
*. /here(ore> it2s al6ays morally 6rong to use mari4uana.
In this case the conclusion is totally unrelated to the remises. + much more reasona%le conclusion
6ould %e> Ethere(ore> 6e ha'e a reason to think that shooting eole 6ith machine guns is generally
morally 6rong.F
(".* +on,t arguments make people angr%)
+ good argument is a resect(ul (orm o( ersuasion that aeals to a erson2s caacity to reason and the
erson2s interest in kno6ing the truth. &o6e'er> many eole think the 6ord 2argument2 re(ers to a
shouting match or unleasant disagreement. Perhas that is one meaning o( the 6ord> %ut it is not the
meaning 6e are interested in 6ithin the critical thinking conte.t.
;'en so> it is Buite ossi%le (or eole to gi'e genuine arguments during a shouting match or
unleasant disagreement> and gi'ing Egood argumentsF can make eole 'ery angry. /hey might think
you are %eing pushy or are %eing unleasantly disagreea%le. 9ome eole think all de%ate and
arguments are disresect(ul and disagreea%le %ecause they eBuate some horri%le sort o( argumentation
6ith all rational (orms o( argumentation. &o6e'er> they should not eBuate the t6oK they are di((erent
things.
It is much more disresect(ul to ne'er use arguments o( the critical thinking 'ariety. /o ne'er tell
eole they are 6rong "and 6hy# is to treat them as irrational %eings 6ho can2t handle the truth.
Imagine i( %iology teachers re(used to tell students that whales aren"t fish because whales are warm%
blooded and fish are cold%blooded. /here2s no reason to kee kids in the dark 4ust %ecause it might
11
shatter their un4usti(ied sense o( con(idence.
It is true that (inding out one o( our %elie(s is (alse can shatter our sense o( con(idence and 6e might
(eel %ad i( 6e are articularly attached to the %elie( (or some reason. +t the same time the risks o(
(inding out the truth are o(ten 6orth taking. Consider ho6 many (alse %elie(s can harm us. Peole 6ho
%elie'e that lutonium is sa(e are more likely to get radiation sicknessK eole 6ho don2t kno6 that lead
is to.ic are more likely to get lead oisoning> etc.
12
Chapter 3: Concepts related to argumentation
/his chater resents a discussion o( ten concets related to argumentation:
1. 9tatement
2. Premise
*. Conclusion
0. @act
5. /rue
5. @alse
!. Justi(ied
). Justi(ication
-. 8elie(
10. Mno6ledge
Statement
9tatements are sentences that can %e true or (alse. @or e.amle> Ethere are intelligent li(e (orms that li'e
on other lanets in our gala.yF is a statement %ecause it2s either true or (alse> %ut 6e don2t kno6 6hich.
+n e.amle o( a true statement is E6hales are mammalsF %ecause 6hales are genetically related to
other mammals> are 6armC%looded> gi'e %irth to li'e young> %reathe air> and so on.
+n e.amle o( a (alse statement is Eall (ish are 6armC%loodedF %ecause 6e kno6 that all (ish are coldC
%looded.
3ther e.amles o( statements include the (ollo6ing:
1. +ll humans are mortal.
2. +ristotle 6as a hilosoher.
*. Platyuses are %irds.
0. We should try to %e more gulli%le.
5. We shouldn2t 'ote to reCelect the President.
5. /here is an unkno6n secies o( rimate on the lanet ;arth.
?ot all sentences are statements. ;.amles o( sentences that are not statements include the (ollo6ing:
1. $ook to your rightN
2. 1on2t hurt eoleN
*. Why did you gi'e to that charity,
0. Is ;instein2s theory o( hysics accurate,
+rguments reBuire that 6e ha'e t6o or more statements> %ut a single statement can sometimes %e
%roken into t6o or more statements. +n argument can %e contained 6ithin a single comle. statement
1*
(or that reason. @or e.amle> E6e kno6 6hales aren2t (ish %ecause they2re 6armC%loodedF is an
argument consisting o( a comle. statement that can %e %roken into the (ollo6ing t6o other statements:
1. Whales are 6armC%looded.
2. Whales aren2t (ish.
+n EassertionF is a statement made 6ith the intent to say something true. /he statements in arguments
are technically assertions. When assertions are made 6ithout e'idence 6e o(ten call them E%aseless
assertions.F
+ similar concet is that o( a Eroosition.F + roosition is the concetual content o( a statement. @or
e.amle> E6hales aren2t (ishF and Eno 6hales are (ishF are t6o di((erent statements that e.ress the
same roositionDthey %oth ha'e the same meaning. It can %e ossi%le to e.ress the same roosition
in multile languages> %ut each language 6ould reBuire di((erent statements to e.ress those
roositions.
Premise
+ remise is meant to %e a suorting statement used in an argument. +n argument can ha'e one or
more remises> 6hich are intended to %e a reason to %elie'e the conclusion.
@or e.amle> consider the argument E%ats aren2t %irds %ecause %ats are genetically related to dolhins>
and no %irds are genetically related to dolhins.F
In this case the remises are the (ollo6ing:
1. 8ats are genetically related to dolhins.
2. ?o %irds are genetically related to dolhins.
9ometimes remises do not actually suort the conclusion. In that case someone gi'es remises in
order suort the conclusion> %ut the remises don2t actually gi'e us a good reason to agree 6ith the
conclusion. @or e.amle> consider the argument Edolhins are (ish %ecause they ha'e (ins and li'e in
the ocean.F In this case the remises are the (ollo6ing:
1. 1olhins ha'e (ins.
2. 1olhins li'e in the ocean.
/hese remises are not a good reason to %elie'e dolhins are (ish. In (act> 6e kno6 dolhins are not
(ish.
Conclusion
Conclusions are statements o( arguments that are %eing Eargued (or.F Premises are suosed to suort
the conclusion and gi'e us a reason to think the conclusion is true.
@or e.amle> consider the argument E%ats aren2t %irds %ecause %ats are genetically related to dolhins>
10
and no %irds are genetically related to dolhins.F In this case the conclusion is E%ats aren2t %irds.F
Fact
@or the urose o( critical thinking> (acts are states o( a((airs> arts o( reality> or relations %et6een
things that e.ist. @acts are suosed to %e 6hat makes statements true or (alse> %ut nothing needs to %e
said (or (acts to e.ist. @or e.amle> the statement Ethe cat is on the matF is true recisely 6hen the cat
is on the mat and it is (alse recisely 6hen the cat is not on the mat. /he (act o( a cat %eing on the mat
e.ists 6hether or not 6e say anything a%out it.
@acts can2t %e true or (alse. @acts e.ist or they don2t e.ist. 3nly beliefs> statements> or propositions can
%e true or (alse.
rue
+ccording to +ristotle and many other hilosohers> true statements are those that corresond to
reality. @or e.amle> it is true that Ehumans are mammals.F /he statement Ethe cat is on the matF is
either true or (alse> %ut the (act o( a cat %eing on a mat is not true or (alseDit2s 6hat actually e.ists.
False
+ccording to +ristotle and many other hilosohers> (alse statements are those that do not corresond
to reality. /he statement Edolhins are (ishF is (alse %ecause dolhins are not aroriately descri%ed as
fish.
9ome statements assert that something is (alse. @or e.amle> consider the statement> Eit is (alse that
%ats are %irds.F In this case the statement is true.
=any hilosohers and logicians %elie'e that there are only t6o truth 'alues> and all statements are
either true or (alse. +ssuming that2s true> i( 6e kno6 a statement isn2t true> then 6e kno6 that it must %e
(alse.
!usti"ied
+E4usti(ied %elie(F is a %elie( that is adeBuately rational. @or e.amle> the %elie( that the (uture la6s o(
nature 6ill %e the same as the ast la6s o( nature is 6idely considered to %e E4usti(ied.F =any 4usti(ied
%elie(s are %elie(s 6e can ro'e to %e true> such as the %elie( that dolhins are mammals. &o6e'er> it is
not clear that 6e can ro'e that the (uture la6s o( nature 6ill %e like the ast la6s o( nature. Perhas
gra'ity 6ill Eturn o((F tomorro6 and e'eryone 6ill (loat o(( the (ace o( the ;arth. ;'en so> it seems
er(ectly reasona%le to assume this 6ill not haen.
!usti"ication
Justi(ications are the reasons 6e ha'e (or %elie(s. +rguments are suosed to gi'e us 4usti(ications (or
'arious conclusionsDreasons to agree that certain conclusions are true. @or e.amle> the (act that
%iologists all agree that dolhins are mammals is a good reason to think dolhins are mammals.
15
Perhas the most common (orm o( 4usti(ication is o%ser'ation. We kno6 that eole e.ist %ecause 6e
can see> hear> and touch them.
/he term 2e'idence2 can %e treated as a synonym 6ith the term 24usti(ication2 in this conte.t> %ut it is
sometimes limited 4ust to o%ser'ational 4usti(ications.
Mee in mind that critical thinking o(ten reBuires us to discuss E4usti(ied %elie(sF and the E4usti(ications
6e gi'e (or conclusions.F /hese concets are not eBui'alent. 3ne re(ers to a rational %elie( and the
other re(ers to an argument or an argumentClike reasoning rocess.
#no$ledge
@or the urose o( this conte.t> kno6ledge generally re(ers to E4usti(ied true %elie(.F We can say 6e
know the la6s o( nature 6ill %e the same tomorro6 as they are today> e'en though 6e don2t kno6 that
(or certain. We should not eBuate Ekno6ledgeF 6ith Ecertainty.F Certainty re(ers to a ma.imal or
a%solute (orm o( 4usti(ication> %ut kno6ledge does not reBuire 4usti(ications o( that kind.
We can kno6 things 6ithout realiAing it. @or e.amle> some eole kno6 that E--- O 1001 P 2000F
6ithout e'er thinking a%out it.
We can think 6e kno6 things and %e 6rong. 7ight no6 6e think 6e kno6 the la6s o( nature 6ill
continue to %e the same> %ut i( gra'ity stos tomorro6> then 6e 6ill (ind out 6e 6ere 6rong a(ter all.
15
Chapter 4: Other concepts related to critical thinking
/en concets that are related to argumentation ha'e %een discussed> %ut there are many other concets
that are related to critical thinking that 6e should kno6 a%out. We re(er to many o( these concets 6ith
6hat might sound like ordinary 6ords> %ut the meaning o( the 6ords 6ithin the conte.t o( critical
thinking is o(ten Buite di((erent than 6hat 6e might e.ect. /hat2s one reason 6hy a clari(ication o(
these concets 6ithin a critical thinking conte.t can %e 'ery hel(ul.
/his chater resents a discussion o( the (ollo6ing eight concets related to critical thinking:
1. ;.lanation
2. 1isagreement
*. 1e%ate
0. Criticism
5. 7ational
5. $ogic
!. <alid
). Philosohy
Explanation
;.lanations are the reasons things are the 6ay they are. &yotheses and scienti(ic theories are
e.amles o( e.lanations. /he e.lanation (or 6hy things (all is the Ela6 o( gra'ity.F /he e.lanation
(or 6hy eole can see is %ecause they ha'e eyes. 9cienti(ic e.lanations tell us 6hy things are the 6ay
they are and can hel us make redictions.
Philosohers de'elo many e.lanatory theories in'ol'ing logic> morality> and reality. @or e.amle>
utilitarianism is a moral theory thatDroughly seakingDstates that 6e should try to make eole
haier and reduce their su((ering. +ssuming utilitarianism is true> 6e can use that theory to try to
kno6 6hy and 6hen actions are morally right or 6rong. I( 6e consider all the actions 6e can do and
one action makes eole the haiest comared to all our other otions> then that action 6ould %e
morally right.
Peole o(ten con(use e.lanations and arguments. ;.lanations don2t tell us 6hy 6e should %elie'e
something> %ut arguments do. Consider the e.lanation that states E6e ha'e day and night %ecause the
;arth is sinning.F We kno6 6e ha'e day and night (rom our o%ser'ations o( the 6orld> not %ecause
the ;arth is sinning. We 6ould kno6 6e ha'e day and night> e'en i( 6e ne'er kne6 the ;arth is
sinning.
%isagreement
+ disagreement is 6hat haens 6hen t6o eole ha'e incomati%le %elie(s. @or e.amle> one erson
might think intelligent li(e e.ists on another lanet> and another erson might think intelligent li(e
doesn2t e.ist on another lanet.
1!
1isagreements are o(ten a reason eole ha'e a con'ersation and it can o(ten moti'ate eole to argue.
I( someone disagrees 6ith you> then you might 6ant to educate the other erson as to 6hy you think
your %elie( is 4usti(ied "or 6hy you think the other erson2s %elie( is un4usti(ied#.
;'en so> not all arguments are meant to settle disagreements. +rguments can %e made merely to state
ho6 6e kno6 6hat 6e kno6> 6hy our %elie(s are 4usti(ied> or hel us consider the e'idence (or our
%elie(s.
%ebate
/he urose o( a de%ate is to ersuade eole that one2s %elie( and arguments are %etter than those o(
the oosing side. + de%ate is a discussion in'ol'ing t6o or more eole 6ho disagree> resent
arguments (or incomati%le conclusions> and gi'e o%4ections against the conclusions and arguments
that are gi'en %y the oosing side.
1e%ates generally in'ol'e a lot o( %ack and (orth 6here one side resents o%4ections to the arguments
o( the other side> and de(end the conclusions and arguments resented %y one2s o6n side. Consider the
(ollo6ing de%ate:
/a%itha: We should a%olish the death enalty %ecause human li(e has 'alue.
1a6n: /he death enalty might sa'e li'es> so the 'alue o( human li(e is not a good reason to
oose the death enalty.
/a%itha: /here is no e'idence that the death enalty sa'es human li'es.
1a6n: I (ind it likely that the death enalty can sa'e li'es %ecause it can deter criminals 6ho
decide not to murder others out o( (ear o( unishment.
/a%itha: /here is little to no e'idence that the death enalty deters murders in that 6ay> and
the death enalty might gi'e the imression to eole that human li(e is 6orth
sacri(icing (or 'arious goals.
=any eole eBuate the terms 2argument>2 2de%ate>2 and 2hostile disagreement.2 =any eole ha'e the
imression that all de%ates are hostile disagreements> shouting matches> or a disresect(ul e.change o(
ideas> %ut that2s not the concet that is discussed here.
9ome de%ates are Eu%lic de%atesF 6ith an audience> a moderator> and a limited time gi'en to each
side. /hat is not 6hat de%ates re(er to in a critical thinking conte.t. What matters in critical thinking is
ho6 6ell you can argue and ho6 4usti(ied your %elie(s are. &o6 6ell you can ersuade an audience in a
gi'en amount o( time is not rele'ant.
9ome de%ates in hilosohy ha'e lasted thousands o( years 6ith se'eral authors articiating and
6riting their arguments do6n in 'arious %ooks. +lmost e'ery hilosohical essay 6ritten %y
hilosohy ro(essors is art o( a de%ate.
1)
Criticism
We o(ten think o( criticism as insults or disaraging remarks> and many eole say 6e shouldn2t
criticiAe others. &o6e'er> that is not the concet %eing re(erred to here. Instead> it re(ers to an argument
that attemts to oose another argument or %elie(. Criticisms are also kno6n as Eo%4ections>
re(utations> counterCarguments> or negati'e arguments.F
+n e.amle o( a criticism is the (ollo6ing:
1. &anna %elie'es that latyuses are %irds %ecause they ha'e %ills and lay eggs "like ducks#.
2. &o6e'er> &anna didn2t mention that latyuses ha'e (ur and roduce milk (or their young "like
mammals#.
*. /here(ore> &anna2s argument le(t out imortant in(ormation.
&ational
/he 6ords 2rational2 and 2reasona%le2 are generally considered to %e synonyms. Peole are said to ha'e
the o6er o( EreasonF and are Erational animals.F /hese 6ords are generally attached to %elie(s. +
%elie( is Esu((iciently 4usti(iedF i( it2s rational to ha'e the %elie(. 7ational %elie(s are good enough
%ecause the erson either has a su((icient reason to ha'e the %elie( or doesn2t ha'e a su((icient reason to
re4ect the %elie(.
What is rational has to do 6ith 6hat 6e should %elie'e. @or e.amle> someone 6ho kno6s that 6e
ha'e a su((iciently good reason to %elie'e that the ;arth is round should %elie'e that the ;arth is round
rather than (lat. + erson in this circumstance 6ho %elie'es the ;arth is (lat has an irrational %elie(.
&o6 do 6e kno6 6hen a %elie( is Erational,F &o6 do 6e kno6 6hat criteria determines 6hen a %elie(
is Erational,F Part o( the ans6er to these Buestions has %een ans6ered %y logicians. @or e.amle> 6e
kno6 it is irrational to hold %elie(s %ecause o( (allacious arguments "%ad kinds o( arguments#. ;'en so>
there is a lot 6e are still learning a%out rationality and it (alls 6ithin the hilosohical domain called
Eeistemology>F 6hich is the hilosohical study o( kno6ledge> 4usti(ication> and rationality.
'ogic
/here are t6o main domains o( logicDin(ormal logic and (ormal logic. In(ormal logic concerns an
understanding o( argumentation and in(ormal (allacies 6ithin ordinary language. @ormal logic concerns
argument (orm "also kno6n as Eargument structureF#. /his %ook is rimarily (ocused on in(ormal logic.
+rgument (orm 6ill %e discussed in Part I<.
/here are o%4ecti'e criteria that determine 6hen an argument is ElogicalF 6ithin the critical thinking
conte.t. $ogic in'ol'es rigor and recision (ar %eyond 6hat you should e'er e.ect in a casual
con'ersation.
Peole o(ten use the 6ord 2logic2 'ery loosely and o(ten seem to think that Elogical argumentsF are
E6hate'er arguments sound good.F /hat is not the case in this conte.t. What sounds good can %e
1-
maniulati'e and unreasona%le.
/he (act that eole de(ine the 6ord 2logic2 in such imrecise> unclear> and loose 6ays could e.lain
6hy so (e6 eole think they should learn logic. /hey already kno6 6hich arguments Esound good>F
so 6hat2s the oint, /he oint is that there2s a great deal o( clarity> rigor> and recision that logic classes
can o((er us. Peole are generally good at kno6ing 6hen arguments are good> %ut they make mistakes.
Lnderstanding logic o( the critical thinking 'ariety can hel us make (e6er mistakes and think more
clearly.
(alid
In this conte.t> an argument is 'alid i( it2s imossi%le (or its remises to %e true and conclusion to %e
(alse at the same time. 3n the other hand invalid arguments could ha'e true remises and a (alse
conclusion at the same time. It2s generally imortant to ha'e 'alid arguments %ecause it hels assure us
that our remises are a reason to agree 6ith our conclusions. <alidity 6ill %e discussed in detail in Part
I<.
+n e.amle o( a 'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. I( liAards are mammals> then liAards are animals.
2. $iAards are mammals.
*. /here(ore> liAards are animals.
/he second remise is (alseDliAards are not actually mammals. ;'en so> this argument is logically
'alid %ecause it 6ould %e imossi%le (or the conclusion to %e (alse assuming the remises are true.
<alid arguments are not necessarily Egood arguments.F <alid arguments ha'e something good going (or
them> %ut might not ha'e e'erything good going (or them.
+n e.amle o( an in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. I( liAards are retiles> then liAards are animals.
2. $iAards are animals.
*. /here(ore> liAards are retiles.
/he remises and conclusion are all true> %ut the argument is in'alid %ecause 6e can assume that the
remises are true and the conclusion is (alse. In other 6ords> the remises are not su((icient to ro'e the
conclusion to %e true. $iAards 6ould %e animals> e'en i( they are mammals. I( 6e assume that liAards
are mammals> then the conclusion 6ould %e (alse> e'en though the remises 6ould %oth %e true.
$ike the 6ord 2logic>2 eole use the 6ord 2'alid2 'ery loosely outside o( the critical thinking conte.t. +
E'alid ointF or E'alid argumentF in a casual conte.t seems to mean something like Eit sounds good to
me.F +gain> this is much less technical> rigorous> and clear than 6hat the 6ord means 6ithin the critical
thinking conte.t. E$ogiciansF are not 4ust saying 6hat sounds good to them. /hey2re using high
standards o( rationality to make 'arious disco'eries. @or e.amle> logicians can disco'er 6hen %elie(s
are consistent and 6hen arguments are 'alid.
20
P)ilosop)y
Philosohy> %roadly seaking> is a rigorous attemt to de%ate and make good arguments. While
engaging in hilosohy> 6e can consider 'arious 'ie6oints against our %elie(s> try to make sure our
%elie(s are all consistent> try to make sure our %elie(s are 4usti(ied> and so on.
Philosohy in the educational conte.t tends to %e distinguished (rom natural science and only deals
6ith certain domains that natural science does not currently (ocus on> such as logic> critical thinking>
ethics "the study o( morality#> metahysics "the study o( reality#> and eistemology "the study o(
kno6ledge#.
/he 6ord 2hilosohy2 6ithin e'eryday li(e o(ten re(ers to ersonal %elie(s or ersonal olicies. @or
e.amle> a erson might say> E+ enny sa'ed is a enny earnedD/hat2s my hilosohyNF /hat2s not
6hat hilosohy re(ers to 6ithin the critical thinking conte.t. It has nothing to do 6ith 6hat hilosohy
ro(essors study.
21
Chapter 5: What Are Good Arguments?
/here is no uncontro'ersial Eone siAe (its allF de(inition (or good arguments that 6ill tell us 6hether an
argument is a good argument or not. /he term is a %it 'ague and there is room (or disagreement. We
can2t gi'e a list o( necessary and su((icient conditions (or 6hen an argument is a good one that all
hilosohers 6ill agree 6ith. ;'en so> 6hat constitutes good arguments in'ol'es rational criteria. In
(act> arguments are good inso(ar as they are Erationally ersuasi'e.F Consider the (ollo6ing si. 6ays
6e can descri%e good arguments:
1. We can gi'e uncontro'ersial e.amles o( good arguments.
2. Good arguments must not %e (allacious.
*. Good arguments are rationally ersuasi'e.
0. /he remises o( good arguments are su((iciently 4usti(ied.
5. /he conclusion o( good arguments are likely true gi'en the assumtion that the remises are
true.
(-.1 'e can gi$e uncontro$ersial e(amples of good arguments.
&ere are t6o uncontro'ersial e.amles o( a good arguments:
Argument 1
1. +ll dogs that ha'e %een studied %y scientists 6ere disco'ered to %e mammals.
2. /here(ore> all dogs are ro%a%ly mammals.
/his is an inducti*e argument. Inducti'e arguments generaliAe using limited in(ormation to attemt to
ro'ide us 6ith a conclusion that is likely true gi'en the remises. Inducti'e reasoning is used 6hen 6e
try to make lausi%le redictions or use statistics.
Argument 2
1. +ll dogs are mammals.
2. I( all dogs are mammals> then all dogs are animals.
*. /here(ore> all dogs are animals.
/his is a deducti*e argument. 1educti'e arguments are meant to ro'e that a conclusion must %e true
as long as 6e assume the remises are true.
/he distinction %et6een inducti'e and deducti'e arguments 6ill %e discussed in more detail in Chater
21 o( this %ook.
22
(-." .ood arguments must not be fallacious.
@allacies are errors in reasoning. Good arguments must not %e (allacious %ecause such argument don2t
gi'e us a good reason to %elie'e something. Consider the (ollo6ing three tyes o( (allacies:
1. Stra$ man argument Q /o mischaracteriAe an argument or %elie( in order to make it seem less
reasona%le than it really is. @or e.amle> imagine that 9amantha argues that E6e should
continue to use the death enalty %ecause some eole 6ill decide not to commit murder
kno6ing they could %e e.ecuted.F I 6ould then gi'e a stra6 man argument i( I resonded %y
saying> E9amantha thinks that 6e should continue to use the death enalty %ecause no one 6ill
choose to commit murder kno6ing they could %e e.ecuted (or it> %ut o%'iously murderers are
6illing to take that chance in laces that still use the death enalty. /hey are not deterred
kno6ing a%out the harsh unishment.F In this case I attemted to re(ute an argument> %ut it is a
nota%ly 6orse argument than the one gi'en %y 9amantha. 9he ne'er claimed that the death
enalty 6ould deter everyone (rom committing murder> %ut only that it could deter some eole
(rom committing murder.
2. False dilemma Q +lso kno6n as E%lack and 6hite thinking.F +n argument that reBuires us to
only consider so many otions 6hen there is at least one reasona%le otion that2s ignored. @or
e.amle> a erson might argue that Ethe President o( the Lnited 9tates is either a dog or a cat.
&e2s not a dog> so he2s a cat.F /here is at least one other otionDthe President is a human %eing.
*. +ne-sidedness Q +lso kno6n as Esuressed e'idence.F +n argument commits the oneC
sidedness (allacy 6hen it gi'es considerations in (a'or o( a conclusion %ut it lea'es out
imortant considerations against the conclusion. @or e.amle> a erson might argue that 6e
should 'ote (or the 1emocratic candidate (or resident %ecause the 7eu%lican candidate
suorted the %ank %ailout 6hen %oth candidates actually suorted the %ailout.
@allacies 6ill %e discussed in more detail in Part < o( this %ook.
(-.& .ood arguments are rationall% persuasi$e.
Good arguments gi'e us a su((icient reason to %elie'e something is true inso(ar as the reason is
comati%le 6ith rationality. What e.actly is Erationality,F +t the 'ery least rationality reBuires that 6e
don2t contradict oursel'es or use (allacies. &o6e'er> rationality in a %road sense in'ol'es 6hat 6e
should %elie'e:
1. &ationally re,uired Q /hese are roositions that 6e should %elie'e> and it 6ould %e 6rong
not to %elie'e them. We 6ould %e irrational not to %elie'e these things. @or e.amle> 6e are
rationally reBuired to %elie'e that at least three eole e.ist %ased on our e.eriences o( our
(amily> (riends> and strangers. + %elie( is only rationally reBuired i( 6e ha'e a 'ery strong
reason to %elie'e it2s true.
2. &ationally permissible Q /hese are %elie(s that are otional. We need not %elie'e them> %ut
there2s nothing 6rong 6ith %elie'ing them. @or e.amle> it seems er(ectly reasona%le to
%elie'e that comuters 6ill %e greatly imro'ed 6ithin the ne.t ten years considering ho6
much they ha'e %een imro'ed o'er time in the ast. + %elie( is only rationally ermissi%le i(
6e ha'e a good enough reason to %elie'e it2s true.
2*
*. &ationally impermissible Q /hese are roositions that 6e should not %elie'eDit 6ould %e
6rong to %elie'e them. We could say it 6ould %e irrational to ha'e these %elie(s. @or e.amle>
it is rationally imermissi%le to %elie'e that 6e can 4um to the moon %ased on our e.eriences
o( our human limitations and the la6s o( nature. + %elie( is rationally imermissi%le only i( 6e
ha'e a 'ery good reason to think it2s (alse.
&o6 do 6e kno6 e.actly i( a %elie( is rationally reBuired or ermissi%le, /hat is a contro'ersial issue
in eistemology "the hilosohical study o( kno6ledge> rationality> and 4usti(ication#. &o6e'er> this
issue is articularly related to the concet o( E4usti(ied %elie(s>F 6hich is discussed %elo6.
(-.* The premises of good arguments are sufficientl% /ustified.
What e.actly does it mean (or a remise to %e su((iciently 4usti(ied, It means that it2s rational to %elie'e
the remise is true %ecause 6e ha'e a good enough reason to %elie'e itDthere is enough e'idence to
6arrant the %elie(. 9ome %elie(s ha'e such a strong 4usti(ication that 6e ha'e to %elie'e them> some
%elie(s are 4usti(ied enough to %e comati%le 6ith rationality> and 6e ha'e such strong 4usti(ication
against certain %elie(s that the %elie(s are incomati%le 6ith rationality.
Mee in mind that the classic de(inition o( Ekno6ledgeF is o( a E4usti(ied true %elie(.F I( no %elie(s are
4usti(ied> then it 6ould %e imossi%le to kno6 anything. Ret 6e kno6 lots o( things. We kno6 E1O1P2>F
6e kno6 that more than three eole e.ist> and 6e kno6 that dogs are mammals.
I( 6e ha'e a good argument that leads to a %elie( in a true conclusion> then it is reasona%le to say that
6e Eknow the conclusion is true.F ;'en so> 6hat Buali(ies as a Esu((icient 4usti(icationF is not al6ays
easy to understand. + ermissi'e 'ie6 is that a erson 6ho has rationally ermissi%le remises only
needs remises that are not yet re(uted similar to a scienti(ic hyothesis that is assumed to %e true until
ro'en other6ise.
+dditionally> it is not al6ays o%'ious 6hat kind o( a 4usti(ication makes our %elie(s likely true or
rationally reBuired. @or e.amle> some hilosohers argue that the only 4usti(ications that matter
in'ol'ing the 6orld are those in'ol'ing o%ser'ation> %ut other hilosohers %elie'e that intuition "a
(orm o( 4usti(ication that is more di((icult to understand# should count (or something as 6ell. Intuiti'e
%elie(s are those that 6e think seem true 6hen 6e ha'e a hard time e.laining ho6 6e can kno6 they
are true. @or e.amle> it can %e argued that 6e (ind it intuiti'e that E2O2P0F and yet 6e ha'e a hard
time e.laining ho6 6e can kno6 it to %e true. It 6ould also %e Ecounterintuiti'eF to (ind out that
E2O2P5.F
+nother e.amle o( an intuiti'e %elie( is that at least one o( t6o contradictory statements are al6ays
(alse. /6o statements are contradictory 6hen one statement is incomati%le 6ith the other. @or
e.amle> E9ocrates is a manF contradicts E9ocrates is not a man.F It 6ould %e counterintuiti'e to (ind
out that 9ocrates is %oth a man and not a man.
(-.- The conclusion of good arguments are likel% true gi$en the
assumption that the premises are true.
20
Premises o( good arguments need to %e good reasons to %elie'e that the conclusions are true> 6hich
means that if the premises of a good argument are true& then the conclusion is likely true as a result. It
is unlikely (or the remises o( a good argument to %e true and the conclusion to %e (alse at the same
time. In other 6ords> good deducti'e arguments are logically valid> and good inducti'e arguments are
logically strong.
$ogically *alid arguments can2t ossi%ly ha'e true remises and a (alse conclusion at the same time
%ecause they ha'e a logically 'alid argument (orm. @or e.amle> E+. I( +> then 8. /here(ore> 8F has a
logically 'alid argument (orm. +n argument 6ith this (orm is E+ll it %ulls are dogs. +ll dogs are
retiles. /here(ore> all it %ulls are retilesF is a 'alid argument %ecause it2s imossi%le (or the remises
to %e true and the conclusion to %e (alse at the same time. ;'en so> one o( the remises is (alse> and the
conclusion is (alse.
$ogically 'alid arguments 6ith true remises al6ays ha'e true conclusions. /hese arguments are
logically sound. @or e.amle> E+ll dogs are mammals. I( all dogs are mammals> then all dogs are
animals. /here(ore> all dogs are animals.F /he remises and conclusions o( logically sound arguments
are al6ays true.
$ogically strong inducti'e arguments are unlikely to ha'e true remises and a (alse conclusion at the
same time. I( 6e assume the remises are true> then the conclusion is also likely true. @or e.amle> E+ll
dogs 6e ha'e e'er seen 6ere retiles. /here(ore> all dogs are ro%a%ly retiles.F /his is an inducti'ely
strong argument> %ut the remise is (alse.
+n argument is logically cogent i( and only i( it2s logically strong arguments and has true remises. @or
e.amle> E+ll dogs 6e ha'e e'er seen 6ere mammals. /here(ore> all dogs are ro%a%ly mammals.F
+ll good deducti'e arguments are 'alid and all good inducti'e arguments are strong> %ut not all good
arguments ha'e true remises %ecause 6e don2t need to know that the remises are true. Instead> the
remises merely need to %e su((iciently 4usti(ied. @or e.amle> consider +rgument 2 (rom a%o'e:
1. +ll dogs are mammals.
2. I( all dogs are mammals> then all dogs are animals.
*. /here(ore> all dogs are mammals.
8oth remises are con(irmed %y our %est science> %ut it is ossi%le that the (irst remise (alse. We don2t
kno6 it2s true (or a%solute certain. Perhas one day 6e 6ill (ind out that dogs are a secies that merely
greatly resem%les mammals. ;'en so> this is still a er(ectly good argument. It is er(ectly reasona%le
to use the results o( our %est science as remises (or our arguments> e'en though the conclusions o( our
%est science is occasionally disco'ered to %e (alse.
<alidity and soundness 6ill %e discussed in more detail in Part I< o( this %ook.
Conclusion
Lnderstanding good argumentation reBuires us to %etter understand rationality and 4usti(ication.
25
+lthough hilosohers do not agree unanimously a%out 6hat makes a good argument> there is a great
deal o( agreement. /here are uncontro'ersial e.amles o( good arguments> there are uncontro'ersial
e.amles o( (allacies> good arguments are meant to hel us understand 6hat is true> and good
arguments are meant to hel us understand 6hat 6e should %elie'e. @inally> good arguments are central
to our understanding o( kno6ledgeDto kno6 anything imlies that 6e had a su((iciently good reason
to %elie'e it. I( 6e ha'e a good argument (or a conclusion and the conclusion is true> then 6e kno6 the
conclusion is true.
25
Chapter : !o" to !a#e A $ational %e&ate
+ de%ate is a con'ersation in'ol'ing t6o or more eole 6ho gi'e arguments (or and against a %elie(.
1e%ates also in'ol'e arguments against the arguments gi'en %y the oosing side. 7ational de%ates
reBuire eole to %e sincere and to attemt to gi'e good arguments. 7ational de%ates are imortant
%ecause they are educational (or anyone 6ho is sincerely interested in 6hat they should %elie'e.
7ational de%ates ha'e little relation to any soCcalled de%ates 6e see in olitics. E7ational de%ateF does
not re(er to Ede%ate cometitionsF or legal trials.
/he Buestion here is 6hat e.actly a rational de%ate is suosed to %e like in simle terms. In articular>
6e 6ill consider the E%urden o( roo(>F Esuorting arguments>F Eo%4ections>F and Egood arguments.F
(0.1 1urden of proof
/he %urden o( roo( is the need to gi'e an argument (or a %elie(. I( a %elie( has a %urden o( roo( and
no argument is gi'en (or the %elie(> then it 6ould %e inaroriate to continue to use that %elie( in an
argument during a de%ate.
/he %urden o( roo( 6ithin a de%ate is against any challenged claim that hasn2t %een argued (or
6hatsoe'er. In other 6ords de%ates reBuire us to argue (or our contro'ersial claims. I( 6e make an
assertion> then 6e can %e asked to 4usti(y it 6ith an argument. 1e%ates o(ten start o(( 6ith a
disagreementDa side (or and a side against a %elie(. 8oth sides are then reBuired to argue (or their take
on the issue.
Imagine that someone claims that a%ortion should %e illegal> %ut someone else thinks it should %e legal.
In this case the (irst erson should argue that it should %e illegal and the other erson "the oonent#
should argue that it should %e legal.
It is o(ten said that Eone sideF in articular has the %urden o( roo(. I( an oonent gi'es an o%4ection to
your argument> then you ha'e the %urden o( roo( to de(end your argument. &o6e'er> the same is true
o( your oonent. &e or she must de(end his or her argument i( you gi'e an o%4ection to it as 6ell.
(0." 2upporting arguments
+ suorting argument is an argument (or some %elie(Dthat 6e should all ha'e some articular %elie(.
8oth sides o( a rational de%ate could %e said to gi'e suorting arguments (or their ersonal take on the
issue. /hese are the only t6o ositi'e arguments that are necessarily reBuired in a de%ate> and these
could %e said to %e the Estarting arguments.F
/he starting arguments (or the a%ortion de%ate could %e the (ollo6ing:
2!
1. +%ortion should %e illegal %ecause 6e shouldn2t kill children and a%ortion kills children.
2. +%ortion should %e legal %ecause 6omen ha'e a right to their o6n %odies and making a%ortion
illegal 'iolates the right to their %odies.
?ote that e'ery argument has at least one remiseDa reason "or art o( a reason# to think the
conclusion is 4usti(ied or likely true. @or e.amle> E6e shouldn2t kill childrenF and Ea%ortion kills
childrenF are t6o assertions that are %oth reBuired to (ully 4usti(y the conclusion "that a%ortion should
%e illegal#. &o6e'er> these remises 6ill ha'e a %urden o( roo( until they are argued (or or acceted
%y the oonent. I( an oonent re4ects all the remises gi'en 6ithin a de%ate> then the de%ate 6ill
ne'er go any6here. /he oonent must %e sincere and %e 6illing to agree that certain remises are
4usti(ied in order (or the de%ate to %e 'ery interesting.
(0.& 3b/ections
3%4ections are also kno6n as Echallenges>F Ere%uttalsF or Ere(utations.F 3%4ections are arguments that
attemt to gi'e us a reason to re4ect another argument. 8oth sides o( a de%ate should try to e.lain 6hy
the arguments gi'en %y the other side should %e re4ected. /he (irst o%4ections should %e gi'en against
the starting arguments> %ut the o%4ections gi'en %y the oosing side should also %e relied to in this
6ay at some oint.
/his imlies that there could %e o%4ections to o%4ections on and on (ore'er. /here is no guarantee that a
de%ate 6ill e'er end> %ut i( %oth sides are trying to gi'e rationally ersuasi'e arguments and are sincere>
then one side could e'entually con'ince the oosing side to s6itch sides.
+n e.amle o( an o%4ection against the (irst argument is that the remise E6e shouldn2t kill childrenF is
un4usti(ied. /he remise seems to imly that E6e shouldn2t kill children no matter 6hat>F %ut erhas
there are reasons that killing children can %e morally acceta%le> such as 6hen a %an on a%ortion 6ould
'iolate a 6oman2s right to her %ody> it could endanger the li(e o( a mother> andSor the regnancy is
(orced uon an un6illing 'ictim. ?otice that a single remise o( the (irst argument is singled out and is
%eing taken as a contro'ersial remise "the remise that states that E6e shouldn2t kill childrenF#. Within
a de%ate> the oosing side need not e.lain 6hy a remise is seen as un4usti(ied 6hen no argument is
yet gi'en (or that articular remise> %ut it is generally a good idea to say something a%out 6hy the
remise could %e rationally re4ected.
+lthough it is ossi%le (or a de%ate to include someone 6ho is ne'er 6illing to accet the remises o(
the oosing side> 6e should generally demand that %oth sides 4usti(y their remises eBually. Imagine
that a de%ate includes one erson arguing (or all his or her remises endlessly and an oonent 6ho
re4ects e'ery single remise that is e'er gi'en %y the other. It is not (air to make such demands on the
oonent %ut not on onesel(> so in (airness %oth sides should try to gi'e 4ust as many arguments as they
demand o( the oosing side.
+n e.amle o( an o%4ection to an o%4ection could %e an attemt to 4usti(y the remise "%y de(ending the
%elie( that 6e should ne'er kill children# and e.lain 6hy the reasons gi'en to re4ect the remise are
not ersuasi'e. In this case it could %e e.lained 6hy a 6oman2s right to her %ody> 6hy an endangered
mother2s li(e> andSor 6hy a (orced regnancy 6ould not %e good reasons to legaliAe a%ortion.
2)
3( course> the antiCa%ortion ad'ocate could also 6eaken "or clari(y# their claim and allo6 certain
e.cetions> such as 6hen the mother2s li(e is endangered or the regnancy 6as (orced uon the mother.
In that case the de%ate 6ill %ecome more nuanced and each side 6ill ha'e to clari(y e.actly 6hat their
osition is. In this case the antiCa%ortion ad'ocate 6ould not 4ust 6ant a %lanket %an on a%ortion> %ut
only a %an on a%ortion in general "that doesn2t meet certain criteria#.
Mee in mind that rational de%ates must stay (ocused. @or e.amle> i( an o%4ection is against a certain
remise> then the de%ate should stay (ocused on discussing that remise until that art o( the de%ate is
resol'ed. I( the de%ate co'ers too many remises and issues> then it can Buickly %ecome con(using and
lack clarity.
(0.* .ood arguments
We should try to sincerely try to e.lain 6hy 6e should %elie'e something in a rational de%ate> 6hich
reBuires us to try to gi'e good arguments. We should not merely 6ant to E6in an argumentF %y tricking
the oosing side into agreeing 6ith us or %y maniulating an audience. @or e.amle> many de%aters
6ill insult the oosing side in order to get the audience to take the oosing side less seriously.
/here are at least t6o uncontro'ersial 6ays to rationally suort arguments in e'eryday con'ersationD
aealing to the consensus o( e.erts and aealing to o%ser'ations. @or e.amle> 6e kno6 that all
dogs are mammals %ecause %iologists agree that all dogs are mammalsK and 6e kno6 that more than
three eole e.ist %ecause 6e2'e seen hundreds o( thousands o( eole. 3( course> that does not mean
that the consensus o( e.erts could ne'er %e challenged or that o%ser'ations can ne'er %e deceti'e.
Good arguments must stay (ocused> %e onCtoic> and %e rele'ant to the de%ate. @or e.amle> the
ad'ocate (or a%ortion legaliAation could argue that 6e should re4ect that Eit2s al6ays 6rong to kill
children no matter 6hatF %ecause regnancy can endanger the li(e o( the mother. It 6ould then %e
inaroriate (or the antiCa%ortion ad'ocate to totally ignore that o%4ection and rely> EI am not
con'inced that 6omen ha'e a right to their %odies.F In this case it2s not 4ust a%out a right to your %ody
at stake> %ut also the right to rotect your right to li'e. +lthough 6hat the antiCa%ortion ad'ocate says is
rele'ant to the de%ate> it is not rele'ant to the o%4ection raised> and it 6ill likely %e distracting. It should
not %e taken to %e a reply to the ob'ection (or that reason.
2-
Chapter ': (araphrasing ) Clari*ying Arguments
When 6e 6ant to %etter understand an argument> it2s o(ten use(ul to arahrase the argument in
addition to identi(ying 6hat e.actly the remises and conclusions are. + arahrase is an attemt to
clari(y an argument %y restating the remises and conclusions. Parahrasing other eole2s arguments
(or the urose o( rational de%ate reBuires that 6e interret their argument in a charita%le 6ay.
Parahrasing is not an e.act science and eole can legitimately disagree a%out the %est 6ay to
arahrase an argument.
I 6ill discuss the (ollo6ing:
1. Charita%le arahrasing
2. /ransitional 6ords
*. ;.ressi'e : in(ormati'e meaning
0. $oaded language
5. +m%iguity
5. <agueness
(4.1 Charitable paraphrasing
7ational de%ate reBuires charita%le arahrasing %ecause 6e 6ant to discuss the most rationally
ersuasi'e arguments that 6e %elie'e to %e rele'ant to a de%ate. I( an oonent o( a de%ate gi'es an
argument> 6e should sometimes arahrase the argument to make sure that 6e understand it roerly>
and sometimes in order to clari(y 6hy 6e disagree 6ith it.
@or e.amle> imagine that an oonent argues the (ollo6ing during a de%ate:
+%ortions are immoral in at least some situations. +(ter all> it is a moral a%omination to
murder a ne6%orn child> %ut un%orn children are no di((erent (rom ne6%orn children the
day %e(ore they 6ould %e %orn.
We could charita%ly arahrase this argument as (ollo6s:
1. It is morally 6rong to kill a ne6%orn child.
2. I( it is morally 6rong to kill a ne6%orn child> then it is sometimes morally 6rong to ha'e an
a%ortion.
*. /here(ore> it is sometimes morally 6rong to ha'e an a%ortion.
Imagine that someone uncharita%ly arahrases the argument as (ollo6s:
1. It is al6ays morally 6rong to kill a ne6%orn child.
2. I( it is morally 6rong to kill a ne6%orn child> then it is al6ays morally 6rong to kill an un%orn
*0
child.
*. /here(ore> a%ortion is al6ays morally 6rong.
/his EarahraseF is uncharita%le %ecause it2s much more am%itious than the original argumentDit is
much more lausi%le that a%ortion is sometimes 6rong than that it is always 6rong.
/he ro%lem 6ith %eing uncharita%le to our oonents during de%ates is that 6e can2t roerly resond
to the arguments our oonents gi'e 6hen 6e distort them. I( you re(ute a distorted argument o( an
oonent rather than the actual argument> then the actual argument hasn2t %een re(uted. /o distort an
oonent2s argument in order to encourage eole to dismiss it or take the oonent less seriously is
kno6n as the Estra6 man (allacy.F "I 6ill discuss the stra6 man (allacy in additional to other (allacies
in more detail later on on this %ook.#
(4." Transitional 5ords
When 6riting an essay or seaking casually> transitional 6ords hel gi'e our arguments (lo6 and make
them easier to read. &o6e'er> arguments need (e6 to no transitional 6ords other than Ethere(ore.F It is
o(ten a good idea to remo'e transitional 6ords (rom a arahrase (or this reason.
9ome transitional 6ords hel clari(y 6hen a statement is a remise> such as the (ollo6ing:
1. %ecause
2. (or the reason that
*. as sho6n %y
0. as indicated %y
9ome transitional 6ords hel clari(y 6hen a conclusion is gi'en> such as the (ollo6ing:
1. there(ore
2. so
*. thus
0. hence
3ther transitional 6ords merely hel connect ideas or imro'e the (lo6 o( an argument> such as the
(ollo6ing:
1. ho6e'er
2. additionally
*. moreo'er
What2s it like to remo'e transitional 6ords (rom an argument, Consider the (ollo6ing assage:
Jill argues that the death enalty should %e a%olished %ecause sometimes innocent eole
are e.ecuted (rom it. &o6e'er> the death enalty could deter eole (rom committing
*1
murder> so it shouldn2t %e a%olished.
In this case 6e ha'e t6o arguments. We can arahrase them as (ollo6s:
1. 9ometimes innocent eole are e.ecuted (rom the death enalty.
2. /here(ore> the death enalty should %e a%olished.
1. /he death enalty could deter eole (rom committing murder.
2. /here(ore> the death enalty shouldn2t %e a%olished.
In this case Eho6e'er>F E%ecause>F and EsoF 6ere eliminated> %ut the term Ethere(oreF 6as used to
make it clear that the second statement o( each arahrased argument is the conclusion.
(4.& 6(pressi$e & informati$e meaning
We use language to e.ress oursel'es and to con'ey in(ormation. /he e.ressi'e meaning o( a
statement con'eys emotion> and the in(ormati'e meaning con'eys in(ormation. Consider the statement
Ethose desica%le children shouldn2t %e gi'en any cake.F In this case the e.ressi'e meaning is
con'eyed %y the 6ord Edesica%leF in order to e.ress disaro'al to6ards the children> and the idea
that the children Eshouldn2t %e gi'en any cakeF is in(ormati'e. In this case the e'aluati'e "or ethical#
content seems to %e at least concetually seara%le (rom the emotion %eing e.ressed.
It is o(ten thought that the e.ressi'e meaning detracts (rom Erational ersuasion.F /here(ore> 6hen
arahrasing an argument it2s o(ten thought that 6e should remo'e the e.ressi'e content. /his is
esecially imortant 6hen 6e 6ant to understand the logical structure o( an argument %y remo'ing the
e.ressi'e meaning 6hen 6e use (ormal logic.
Consider the (ollo6ing argument that con'eys e.ressi'e meaning:
Politicians need a lot o( money to run (or o((ice> so they accet donations (rom
cororations in order to get the money needed. Politics encourages legaliAed %ri%ery
%ecause oliticians ha'e to ay cororate donors %ack in order to kee getting donations.
/his tye o( moneyCgru%%ing cronyism must %e a%olished.
We can then arahrase this argument 6ith in(ormati'e content and 6ithout e.ressi'e content as the
(ollo6ing:
1. Politicians need a lot o( money to run (or o((ice.
2. Politicians accet cororate donations in order to raise money.
*. I( oliticians need a lot o( money to run (or o((ice and accet donations in order to raise money>
then they 6ill %e ressured to hel cororate sonsors.
0. We should make sure that oliticians are not ressured to hel out cororate sonsors.
5. /here(ore> 6e should make sure that oliticians don2t need a lot o( money to run (or o((ice or
don2t accet cororate donations to raise money.
*2
(4.* !oaded language
/he e.ressi'e content o( an argument is a tye o( Eloaded language>F 6hich is language that is likely
to elicit a certain resonse on the audience. 9ometimes Eloaded languageF is maniulati'e and leads the
audience to make un6arranted assumtions. In that case it is e'en more imortant to understand ho6 to
identi(y and remo'e the e.ressi'e meaning (rom the argument. @or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing
argumentDEWe 6ouldn2t 6ant to ta. 4o% creators more then 6e already do> so 6e should make sure to
kee ta.es on the 6ealthiest +mericans lo6.F /he ro%lem here is that the term E4o% creatorF is used as
a synonym 6ith E6ealthy erson>F %ut it is also imlied that the 6ealthy really do create more 4o%s than
anyone else. It 6ould %e a mistake (or e'eryone to merely assume that all 6ealthy eole are eole
6ho create more 4o%s than e'eryone else and should not ha'e their ta.es raised as a result.
When arahrasing an argument it can %e hel(ul to remo'e any loaded language in order to make it
clear 6hat the actual in(ormati'e content o( the argument is 6ithout any maniulation in'ol'ed.
&o6e'er> sometimes 6e also 6ant to oint out 6hen a erson2s argument is maniulati'e recisely
%ecause o( the use o( loaded language.
(4.- Ambiguit%
+m%iguity arises 6hen it is unclear 6hat is meant %y a statement %ecause there are multile legitimate
interretations. /erminology is am%iguous 6hen there is more than one meaning the term can ha'e>
such as E'alid argument>F 6hich o(ten re(ers to Egood argumentF in e'eryday con'ersation> %ut it can
also re(er to Ean argument that can2t ha'e true remises and a (alse conclusion at the same time.F
+rguments can in'ol'e am%iguity and arahrasing the argument can hel us clari(y the argument in
order to a'oid con(usion. @or e.amle> someone could argue that Edogs o(ten %ite children> so they
should %e locked a6ay.F In this case it2s not clear 6hether the argument is telling us that dogs should %e
locked a6ay or that children should %e locked a6ay. It seems lausi%le that the argument should %e
arahrased as Edogs o(ten %ite children> so the dogs should %e locked a6ay.F
9ometimes am%iguity leads to a mistake in reasoning> 6hich is kno6n as EeBui'ocation.F @or e.amle>
someone could argue that EMarl =ar. is a communist> so he aro'es o( totalitarian states.F &o6e'er>
the tye o( communism that =ar. endorsed 6as not the tye in'ol'ing totalitarianism. /he term
EcommunismF could re(er to something like 6hat =ar. 6anted or something like 6hat 6as adoted %y
the 9o'iet Lnion. In this case the argument eBui'ocates %et6een t6o di((erent tyes o( communism.
(4.* 7agueness
<agueness arises 6hen there2s a continuum and it2s not clear ho6 6e should Edra6 the lineF concerning
the alication o( a concet. @or e.amle> 6e can say that E=ark is tallF %ut it2s not clear ho6 tall a
**
erson has to %e in order to %e tall. Is 525F tall, /hat seems like a %orderline case that could go either
6ay.
+rguments can sometimes make use o( 'ague concets 6hen more recise concets 6ould %e
re(era%le. In that case it2s a good idea to arahrase the argument using more recise language in order
to a'oid con(usion. <ague terminology is o(ten used> such as Etall>F Estrong>F Ea lot>F and Ehealthy.F
@or e.amle> someone could argue that E/all eole ha'e a hard time 6alking through doors that are
threeC(eet high. $isa is tall. /here(ore> $isa 6ill ha'e a hard time 6alking through doors that are threeC
(eet high.F In this case 6e might 6ant to kno6 ho6 tall a tall erson has to %eDerhas a tall erson
must at least %e se'enC(oot tall. We could then rehrase the argument as EPeole 6ho are at least se'enC
(oot tall ha'e a hard time 6alking through doors that are threeC(eet high. $isa is at least se'enC(oot tall.
/here(ore> $isa 6ill ha'e a hard time 6alking through doors that are threeC(eet high.F
9ome arguments that use 'ague concets commit the Econtinuum (allacy.F 9uch arguments state that
6e can2t Edra6 the lineF 6hen dealing 6ith a 'ague term and conclude that the term doesn2t aly to a
situation as a result. @or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing argumentDE+ good (riend is a (riend you can
deend on and send a lot o( time 6ith. Peole 6ho ha'e a good (riend tend to %e haier as a result.
Peole 6ho ha'e t6o good (riends tend to %e e'en haier as a result. It is not clear ho6 6e could dra6
the line %et6een ha'ing enough good (riends and not enough good (riends. /here(ore> eole 6ho ha'e
one thousand good (riends ro%a%ly tend to %e haier as a result.F In this case it seems unlikely that
anyone 6ill %e haier 6ith one thousand good (riends %ecause a (e6 good (riends 6ill ro%a%ly %e
enough to (ul(ill our need to ha'e good (riends. =oreo'er> the time 6e 6ould ha'e to dedicate to one
thousand good (riends 6ould likely %e too demanding on us. It seems lausi%le that at some oint a
erson could get too many good (riends> e'en though it2s not clear ho6 many that 6ould %e.
*0
Part II: Introduction to argument maps
+rgument maing "also kno6n as persuasion mapping or reasoning mapping# is a 'isual
reresentation o( arguments. /hey can hel clari(y arguments and hel us make imortant distinctions.
/his section "Part II# discusses the (ollo6ing:
1. ;.amles o( argument mas and distinctions that can %e made using them.
2. +rgument ma con'entions and errors.
*. &o6 to dra6 argument mas %y hand.
0. 9teC%yCste instructions (or making argument mas.
*5
Chapter +: ,-amples o* argument maps
/his chater has e.amles o( argument mas that can %e used to illustrate 'arious distinctions. /he
distinctions mentioned here are the (ollo6ing:
1. /he di((erence %et6een remises and conclusions.
2. /he di((erence %et6een multile arguments and multile remises.
*. /he di((erence %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections.
(8.1 The difference bet5een premises and conclusions.
Consider the argument:
1. +ll men are mortal.
2. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a mortal.
+n argument ma can illustrate this argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
*5
/he ma clari(ies 6hich statement is the remise and 6hich statement is the conclusion. It illustrates
that the remise suorts the conclusion %y coloring the remise %lue and ha'ing an arro6 oint to the
conclusion.
+lthough this argument could %e ersuasi'e as sho6n here> it is actually not a comlete argument
%ecause it2s not clear ho6 the (act that all men are mortal relates to the (act that Socrates is mortal. I(
9ocrates is a god> then the conclusion 6ould seem to %e (alse.
Consider the imro'ed argument:
1. +ll men are mortal.
2. 9ocrates is a man.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is mortal.
/his imro'ed argument can %e illustrated using the (ollo6ing argument ma:
*!
/his time t6o remises com%ine to (orm a single argument in suort o( the conclusion. /here is a line
connecting %oth remises to sho6 that they com%ine to (orm a single argument. /his argument is
comlete %ecause the remises are su((icient to ro'e the conclusion. I( the remises are true> then the
conclusion must also %e true.
+lthough the t6o a%o'e argument mas make it er(ectly clear 6hat the conclusion is> 6e should kee
in mind that remises can %e used as conclusions %ecause 6e o(ten need to 4usti(y our remises.
Consider that someone might dou%t that Eall men are mortal.F In that case 6e might 6ant to 4usti(y the
(act that all men are mortal. &o6 can 6e kno6 such a thing, We could argue the (ollo6ing:
1. I( not all men are mortal> then 6e ro%a%ly 6ould ha'e (ound an immortal man %y no6.
2. We ha'en2t (ound an immortal man %y no6.
*. /here(ore> all men are ro%a%ly mortal.
*)
;'en so> once again 6e could %e asked to 4usti(y one o( our remises. &o6 do 6e kno6 that 6e ha'en2t
(ound an immortal man yet, We could then resent the (ollo6ing argument:
1. I( 6e (ound an immortal man> then it 6ould ro%a%ly %e in the historical record.
2. /here are no immortal men in the historical record.
*. /here(ore> 6e ro%a%ly ha'en2t (ound an immortal man yet.
+nd againD6e can ro'ide a 4usti(ication (or one o( the remises. &o6 do 6e kno6 that the historical
record 6ould ro%a%ly mention the e.istence o( an immortal man, We could then resent the (ollo6ing
argument:
1. Peole are 'ery interested in immortality.
2. Peole ut things that are 'ery interesting to them in history %ooks.
*. /here(ore> i( 6e (ound an immortal man> then it 6ould ro%a%ly %e in the historical record.
+ll o( these arguments can %e sho6n in a single argument ma:
*-
/his argument ma makes it clear 6hat remise is 4usti(ied %y (urther argumentation. =any o( those
remises are %oth remises and conclusions. Mee in mind that many remises can %e (urther 4usti(ied
and it2s not al6ays clear at 6hat oint 6e should sto 4usti(ying our remises. +t some oint 6e might
ha'e to admit that our remises are assumptions that 6ill not %e ro'en %y argumentation. /hat is o(ten
satis(actory in a de%ate 6hen the assumtion is sharedD6e need not ro'e an uncontested conclusion
00
in a de%ate 6hen e'eryone already agrees 6ith it.
(8." The difference bet5een multiple arguments and multiple premises.
=any eole gi'e a series o( simle arguments rather than a series o( remises> and 6e should kee in
mind the di((erence %et6een the t6o.
Consider the (ollo6ing:
1. 9ometimes 6e (ind out criminals are innocent a(ter 6e kill them.
2. &uman li(e has 'alue.
*. /here(ore> the Lnited 9tates shouldn2t use the death enalty.
In this case the t6o remises are t6o searate argumentsDt6o di((erent and some6hat unrelated
reasons used to suort the conclusionDas illustrated %y this argument ma:
/his argument ma resents t6o di((erent arguments (or a single conclusion> and each argument has a
searate arro6 ointing to the conclusion to make that clear.
We should make sure to di((erentiate t6o suorting arguments (rom arguments 6ith multile
remises. +n e.amle o( an argument 6ith multile remises is the (ollo6ing:
1. 9ometimes 6e (ind out criminals are innocent a(ter killing them.
2. It2s %etter to sa'e a single innocent li(e (rom an un4ust death enalty than to kill se'eral guilty
criminals.
*. /here(ore> the Lnited 9tates shouldn2t use the death enalty.
01
/he argument ma (or this argument looks like the (ollo6ing:
/his argument ma makes it clear that %oth remises com%ine to (orm a single argument %y connecting
%oth remises 6ith a line. /hey are not searate and unrelated reasons to accet the conclusion. We
must kno6 that %oth o( these remises are true (or us to kno6 that the conclusion is true.
(8.& The difference bet5een supporting arguments and ob/ections.
9uorting arguments are sho6n on argument mas in %lue and the 6ord 2suort2 is 6ritten alongside
the arro6 to distinguish them (rom o%4ections. 3%4ections are oosing arguments. 3%4ections are also
kno6n as EchallengesF or Ere(utations.F I( someone resents us 6ith an assertion> conclusion> or
argumentK then 6e might disagree 6ith it and ro'ide an argument o( our o6n against it. 3%4ections
can %e used to sho6 %elie(s to %e in need o( (urther 4usti(ication> irrational> counterintuiti'e> or kno6n
to %e (alse. 3%4ections can also %e used to sho6 arguments to %e logically in'alid or ha'e a nonrational
argument (orm.
Consider the (ollo6ing o%4ection:
1. Micking eole can hurt them.
2. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the %elie( that Eit2s ne'er 6rong to kick eole.F
+n argument ma o( this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
02
/his argument ma illustrates an argument against a %elie(. /he conclusion sho6n on the ma is the
%elie( that is %eing oosedDthat Eit2s ne'er 6rong to kick eoleF and the remise that ooses the
conclusion is that Ekicking eole can hurt them.F /he remise o( the o%4ection is sho6n in ink and
the 6ord 2ooses2 is 6ritten alongside the arro6 to distinguish it (rom suorting arguments.
&o6e'er> 6e aren2t su((iciently 4usti(ied to re4ect the %elie( %ased on the single remise sho6n a%o'e>
6hich is an incomplete argument. We can e.and the o%4ection as the (ollo6ing:
1. Peole sometimes kick others to hurt them.
2. 9ometimes it2s 6rong to do something to try to hurt eole.
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the %elie( that Ekicking eole is ne'er 6rong.F
We can reresent this argument using the (ollo6ing argument ma:
0*
/his time t6o remises are com%ined to (orm a single argument against the %elie(. /he line connecting
%oth remises makes it clear that 6e ha'e a single argument against a conclusion.
00
Chapter .: Argument map errors
/his chater 6ill descri%e argument ma errors> gi'e e.amles o( them> and o((er ractice ro%lems.
(9.1 'hat are argument map errors)
+rgument ma errors are 6ays that an argument ma can 'iolate argument ma Econ'entions.F We
must use certain argument ma con'entions to make sure our argument ma is clear and hels us
distinguish %et6een arguments and remisesK suorting arguments and o%4ectionsK arguments 6ith
multile remises and se'eral arguments 6ith single remisesK and o%4ections to remises> conclusions>
and logical (orm. /here are eight argument ma con'entions that are used 6ithin this %ook:
1. Conclusions "that are not remises# are in a 6hite %o. and 2conclusion2 is 6ritten a%o'e.
2. 9uorting remises are in %lue %o.es.
*. 9uorting arguments ha'e arro6s ointing to the conclusion they suort> and the 6ord
2suorts2 is 6ritten along the arro6.
0. /he 6ord 2remise2 is 6ritten a%o'e %o.es containing remises.
5. Premises o( o%4ections are in ink %o.es.
5. 3%4ections ha'e arro6s ointing to the conclusion> remise> or argument they are againstK and
the 6ord 2ooses2 is 6ritten alongside the arro6s.
!. +rguments 6ith multile remises are connected %y a line that leads to the arro6.
). Mee remises simle 6hen ossi%le rather than com%ining multile assertions into a single
remise.
Mee in mind that there are no uni'ersally agreedCuon con'entions. +rgument ma con'entions are
necessary to make sure that argument mas are use(ul to us and hel us communicate 6ell> %ut it is
ossi%le to adot con'entions other than those that are used here.
05
(9." 6(amples of argument map errors.
/his section 6ill resent "a# e.amles o( argument mas that each 'iolate one or more o( the eight
con'entions and "%# corrected 'ersions o( the argument mas.
&ule 1- Conclusions .t)at are not premises/ are in a $)ite box and 0conclusion0 is $ritten abo*e1
&ere are (our tis to hel us determine 6hen a statement should %e a conclusion rather than a remise
"or the other 6ay around#:
1. =any arguments ha'e conclusions 6e can kno6 to %e true as long as 6e assume the remises
are true.
2. /he remises generally 6arrant greater con(idence than the conclusion. +rguments are o(ten
suosed to gi'e us a reason to agree 6ith a contro'ersial conclusion %y gi'ing us remises that
6e are likely to agree 6ith.
*. Consider e'ery com%ination o( remises and conclusions i( necessary.
0. In general> no remises should %e e.traneousDthey should all %e needed to imly the
conclusion is true.
/he (ollo6ing argument ma has what should be a conclusion in a %lue remise %o. "9ocrates is
mortal#> and what should be a premise in the 6hite conclusion %o. "all men are mortal#:
In this case 6e kno6 the conclusion is E9ocrates is mortalF %ecause it2s the only statement o( the a%o'e
three that 6e could kno6 is true i( 6e kno6 the other t6o are true. We can2t conclude that all men are
mortal (rom the other t6o statements and 6e can2t conclude that 9ocrates is a man (rom the other t6o
statements. /he (ollo6ing is a corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma:
05
&ule 2- Supporting premises are in blue boxes1
/he (ollo6ing argument ma uses 6hite suorting remise %o.es> %ut they should %e %lue:
0!
/he (ollo6ing is a corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma:
&ule 3- Supporting arguments )a*e arro$s pointing to t)e conclusion t)ey support2 and t)e $ord
0supports0 is $ritten along t)e arro$1
/he (ollo6ing argument ma does not ha'e an arro6 or the 6ord 2suorts2 6ritten alongside the
arro6:
0)
/he (ollo6ing is a corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma:
&ule 3- )e $ord 0premise0 is $ritten abo*e boxes containing premises1
/he (ollo6ing argument ma does not ha'e the 6ord 2remise2 6ritten a%o'e the %lue remise %o.es.
0-
/he (ollo6ing is a corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma:
&ule 4- Premises o" ob5ections are in pink boxes1
/he (ollo6ing argument ma contains oosing remises in %lue %o.es> %ut they should %e ink:
50
+ corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
&ule 6- +b5ections )a*e arro$s pointing to t)e conclusion2 premise2 or premises t)ey are against7
and t)e $ord 0opposes0 is $ritten alongside t)e arro$1
/he (ollo6ing argument ma o( an o%4ection lacks an arro6 and the 6ord 2ooses2 alongside the
arro6:
51
+ corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma looks like the (ollo6ing:
&ule 8- Arguments $it) multiple premises are connected by a line t)at leads to t)e arro$1
/he (ollo6ing argument ma contains t6o remises o( a single argument> %ut the remise %o.es are not
connected %y a line that leads to the arro6. "Instead> each remise has a searate arro6 ointing to the
conclusion.#
52
/he (ollo6ing is a corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma:
&ule 9- #eep premises simple $)en possible rat)er t)an combining multiple assertions into a
single premise1
+ good indication that a remise should %e simli(ied into t6o or more searate remises is i( it
contains the 6ord 2and.2 /he (ollo6ing argument ma has a remise that should %e simli(ied into t6o
searate remises:
5*
/he (ollo6ing is a corrected 'ersion o( this argument ma:
(9.& Practice correcting argument map errors
/he (ollo6ing section contains ten ractice ro%lems. /he ans6ers to the ractice ro%lems are then
resented in another section a(ter6ard.
Mee our argument ma con'entions in mind and determine 6hich errors are contained in each o( the
(ollo6ing ten argument mas. /he Buestion here is not 6hether or not these are good arguments> %ut
merely 6hether or not the argument mas are made correctly. 3ne o( the ractice ro%lems contains no
rele'ant errors.
50
Problem 1
Problem 2
55
Problem 3
Problem 3
55
Problem 4
Problem 6
5!
Problem 8
Problem 9
5)
Problem :
Problem 1;
5-
Ans$ers
Problem 1
/he error is that the EremiseF is more comlicated than necessary and should %e stated as t6o searate
remises: E+ll dolhins are animalsF and Eall animals are organisms.F
/he corrected argument ma looks like the (ollo6ing:
50
Problem 2
/he error made is that the statement in the le(t remise %o. should %e the conclusion> and the statement
in the conclusion %o. should %e a remise:
/he corrected argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
51
Problem 3
/here are three errors:
1. /he remises com%ine to suort the conclusion> so 6e need a line to connect them %oth.
2. +n arro6 needs to oint to the conclusion suorted %y the remises.
*. /he 6ord 2suorts2 should %e 6ritten alongside the arro6.
/he corrected argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
52
Problem 3
/he error made here is that t6o di((erent arguments are made to look as i( they are %oth a single
argument (or the conclusion. We need to make it e.licit that %oth remises are searate arguments (or
the conclusion:
/he corrected argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
5*
Problem 4
/his argument ma resents the remises as an argument in (a'or o( the conclusion> %ut they are
actually an argument against the conclusion:
/he corrected argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
50
Problem 6
/he error is that the t6o remises are art o( a single argument in (a'or o( the conclusion> %ut they are
resented as i( they 6ere t6o searate arguments. We need to connect %oth remises 6ith a line and
ha'e a single arro6 oint to6ards the conclusion (rom the remises.
/he corrected argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
55
Problem 8
/here are three errors 6ith this argument ma:
1. /he arro6s oint (rom the conclusion to the remises> %ut the remises should ha'e an arro6
ointing to6ards the conclusion.
2. /he 6ord 2suorts2 should %e 6ritten ne.t to the arro6.
*. /he remises should %e connected 6ith a line %ecause they are %oth a single argument (or the
conclusion.
/he corrected 'ersion o( the argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
55
Problem 9
/here are t6o errors 6ith this argument ma:
1. /he to %o. is the conclusion> so it should %e 6hite "rather than %lue#.
2. /he 6ord 2conclusion2 should %e 6ritten a%o'e the conclusion %o..
/he corrected 'ersion o( this argument looks like the (ollo6ing:
5!
Problem :
?o argument ma error.
Problem 1;
/his argument ma contains t6o errors:
1. /he remises suort the conclusion> so the remise %o.es should %e %lue rather than ink
2. /he 6ord 2suorts2 should %e ne.t to the arro6 rather than 2ooses.2
/he corrected 'ersion o( this argument looks like the (ollo6ing:
5)
5-
Chapter 1/: %ra"ing argument maps &y hand
I( you make argument mas %y hand> then it could %e too di((icult to (ollo6 all o( the con'entions o(
this %ook. /here are t6o methods that can make dra6ing argument mas %y hand a lot easier: "a# We
can simli(y them and "%# 6e can use 'aria%les.
<o$ $e can simpli"y t)em1
We can simli(y argument ma con'entions in the (ollo6ing 6ays:
1. We don2t ha'e to color the %o.es %lue or ink. "It could take too much time to color %o.es %y
hand> and 6e kno6 i( a %o. is art o( a suorting argument or o%4ection %ased on the (act that
they are 2suorting2 or 2oosing2 another statement.#
2. We don2t ha'e to 6rite 2remise2 or 2conclusion2 a%o'e %o.es. "/hat can also take time and 6e
kno6 i( something is a remise %ased on the (act that there 6ill %e arro6s ointing (rom
remises to conclusions.#
*. /hird> 6e can a%%re'iate 2suorts2 6ith 29>2 and 2ooses2 6ith 23.2
+ simli(ied list o( con'entions 6ould then consist o( the (ollo6ing (our rules:
1. 9uorting arguments ha'e arro6s ointing to the conclusion they suort> and the letter 292 is
6ritten along the arro6.
2. 3%4ections ha'e arro6s ointing to the conclusion> remise> or argument they are against> and
the letter 232 is 6ritten alongside the arro6.
*. +rguments 6ith multile remises are connected %y a line that leads to the arro6.
0. Mee remises simle 6hen ossi%le rather than com%ining multile assertions into a single
remise.
Consider the argument> E9ocrates is a manK all men are mortalK there(ore> 9ocrates is mortal.F We could
dra6 an argument ma %y hand using the simli(ied con'entions that 6ould look like the (ollo6ing:
!0
<o$ $e can use *ariables1
$ong statements can take too much room to (it in the %o.es o( argument mas 6e dra6 %y hand> so 6e
can relace statements 6ith 'aria%les "letters or num%ers#. @or e.amle> instead o( 6riting E+ll dogs
are mammalsF in a %o. 6e could 6rite 2+.2 We 6ould then ha'e to 6rite a guide that translates 6hat
each letter stands (or in our argument ma.
@or e.amle> 6e could ha'e the (ollo6ing argument ma:
!1
/he guide (or this argument ma could %e the (ollo6ing:
+: +ll dogs are animals.
8: +ll dogs are mammals.
C: +ll mammals are animals.
/he argument ma 6ould then reresent the (ollo6ing argument:
1. +ll dogs are mammals.
2. +ll mammals are animals.
*. /here(ore> all dogs are animals.
!2
Chapter 11: !o" to make your o"n argument maps
/his chater resents steC%yCste directions (or making argument mas that ha'e:
1. =ultile suorting arguments (or a single conclusion.
2. + single suorting argument 6ith multile remises.
*. =ultile o%4ections against a single conclusion.
0. + single o%4ection 6ith multile remises.
(11.1 Multiple supporting arguments for a single conclusion.
Step 1- Examine t)e arguments you $ant to map1
Consider the (ollo6ing arguments (or a conclusion:
Micking eole is generally 6rong %ecause...
It is disresect(ul.
It hurts eole.
It makes eole unhay.
Step 2- Plan a)ead1 <o$ many premises and arguments are in*ol*ed=
We 6ill need an argument ma 6ith three arguments (or a single conclusion> and each argument
consists o( a single remise.
Step 3- %ra$ a box "or t)e conclusion and $rite 0conclusion0 o*er t)e box1
!*
Step 3- %ra$ t)ree blue boxes in a ro$ under t)e conclusion box1
Step 4- %ra$ arro$s pointing "rom eac) blue box to t)e conclusion box2 and $rite 0premise0 o*er
eac) blue box1
Step 6- >rite 0supports0 alongside eac) arro$1
!0
Step 8- >rite t)e conclusion in t)e conclusion box and eac) premise in a separate blue box1
(11." A single supporting argument 5ith multiple premises.
Step 1- Examine an argument you $ant to map1
Consider the (ollo6ing argumentDkicking eole is generally 6rong %ecause it causes ain> ain is
%ad> and 6e generally shouldn2t cause %ad things to haen.
Step 2- Plan a)ead1 >)at are t)e premises and $)at0s t)e conclusion=
/his argument has one conclusion and three remises. /he conclusion is Ekicking eole is generally
6rongF and the remises are Ekicking eole causes ain>F Eain is %ad>F and E6e generally shouldn2t
cause %ad things to haen.F
!5
Step 3- %ra$ a $)ite ?conclusion@ box $it) t)ree blue boxes in a ro$ underneat)1
"Write 2conclusion2 o'er the 6hite %o..#
Step 3- %ra$ lines to connect all t)e blue boxes1
!5
Step 4- %ra$ an arro$ "rom t)e blue boxes to t)e conclusion box1
Step 6- >rite 0premise0 o*er eac) blue box1
Step 8- >rite 0supports0 alongside t)e arro$1
!!
Step 9- >rite t)e conclusion in t)e $)ite box and eac) premise in a separate blue box1
(11.& Multiple ob/ections against a single conclusion.
Step 1- Examine t)e ob5ections you $ant to map1
Consider the (ollo6ing o%4ections:
We should re4ect the %elie( that Ekilling eole is al6ays murderF %ecause...
/he death enalty is not murder.
Milling eole 6hen necessary to de(end oursel'es is not murder.
+ccidentally killing eole is not murder.
Step 2- Plan a)ead1
We 6ill need one conclusion and three remises. Mee in mind that the conclusion o( the o%4ections
could %e stated as E6e should re4ect the %elie( that 2killing eole is al6ays murder2F %ut an argument
ma o( o%4ections gi'es us reasons to re4ect the conclusion. /he %elie( that the o%4ections gi'e us
reasons to re4ect is Ekilling eole is al6ays murderF and that 6ill %e the conclusion 6e 6rite on the
argument ma.
!)
Step 3- %ra$ a $)ite ?conclusion@ box $it) t)ree pink boxes in a ro$ underneat)1
"Write 2conclusion2 o'er the 6hite %o..#
Step 3- %ra$ arro$s "rom eac) pink box to t)e $)ite box1
Step 4- >rite 0premise0 o*er eac) pink box1
!-
Step 6- >rite 0opposes0 alongside eac) arro$1
Step 8- >rite t)e conclusion in t)e $)ite box and eac) premise in a separate pink box1
(11.* A single ob/ection 5ith multiple premises.
Step 1- Examine t)e argument you $ant to map out1
Consider the (ollo6ing argumentD9ome eole argue that Ekicking eole is generally 6rong %ecause
it causes ain> ain is %ad> and 6e generally shouldn2t cause %ad things to haen.F &o6e'er> ain is
not %ad %ecause it hels us kno6 6hen 6e are sick> kno6ing 6hen 6e are sick hels us sur'i'e> and it2s
good (or us to sur'i'e.
Step 2- Plan a)ead
We ha'e a suorting argument 6ith three remises> 6hich 6ere already maed out earlier. We also
ha'e an o%4ection consisting o( three remises against the %elie( that Eain is %ad.F /he o%4ection is
only against that one seci(ic remise "i.e. the one that states Eain is %adF#.
)0
/he three remises o( the o%4ection are Eain hels us kno6 6hen 6e are sick>F Ekno6ing 6hen 6e are
sick hels us sur'i'e>F and Eit2s good (or us to sur'i'e.F
Step 3- Ase t)e supporting argument map t)at $as already made earlier1
Step 3- %ra$ t)ree pink boxes under t)e blue boxes1
)1
Step 4- Connect t)e pink boxes $it) lines and dra$ an arro$ to t)e blue box containing t)e
premise ?pain is bad1@
Step 6- >rite ?premise@ o*er eac) pink box and ?opposes@ alongside t)e ne$ly dra$n arro$1
)2
Step 8- >rite eac) premise in a separate pink box1
)*
Chapter 12: (ractice making your o"n argument maps
/his chater resents ten arguments or discussions> and you can create your o6n argument mas (or
them. 1iscussions in'ol'e t6o or more arguments including at least one o%4ection. /he ans6ers 6ill %e
ro'ided in a searate section a(ter6ard.
Problem 1
1. I( unching eole 4ust %ecause they ha'e red hair is al6ays 6rong> then it2s al6ays 6rong to
unch eole 4ust %ecause they ha'e %ro6n hair.
2. Punching eole 4ust %ecause they ha'e red hair is al6ays 6rong.
*. /here(ore> it2s al6ays 6rong to unch eole 4ust %ecause they ha'e %ro6n hair.
Problem 2
1. ;ither the 9un 6ill rise tomorro6 or the lanet ;arth 6ill sto sinning.
2. /he lanet ;arth 6ill not sto sinning.
*. /here(ore> the 9un 6ill rise tomorro6.
Problem 3
1. I( gold is a metal> then gold is made o( molecules.
2. I( gold is made o( molecules> then gold is made o( atoms.
*. /here(ore> i( gold is a metal> then gold is made o( atoms.
Problem 3
1. +ll lants need C3
2
.
2. +ll (erns are lants.
*. /here(ore> all (erns need C3
2
.
We can suort the %elie( that Eall (erns are lantsF %ecause...
1. 8iologists agree that all (erns are lants.
2. I( %iologists agree that all (erns are lants> then they2re right.
Problem 4
1. ?o lanets are dogs.
2. /he ;arth is a 6orld.
*. +ll 6orlds are lanets.
0. /here(ore> the ;arth is not a dog.
)0
Problem 6
9ome eole %elie'e that Ekilling eole is al6ays 6rong.F
&o6e'er> sometimes 6e ha'e to kill eole in sel(Cde(ense to sur'i'e.
Problem 8
9amantha %elie'es that Ethe death enalty is al6ays 6rong.F
&o6e'er...
1. /he death enalty could %e necessary to rotect us (rom murderers.
2. I( the death enalty could %e necessary to rotect us (rom murderers> then it2s not al6ays 6rong.
*. /here(ore> the death enalty is not al6ays 6rong.
Problem 9
George argues that...
1. It2s al6ays 6rong to hurt eole.
2. Punching eole al6ays hurts eole.
*. /here(ore> unching eole is al6ays 6rong.
&o6e'er> it2s (alse that Eunching eole al6ays hurts themF %ecause unching eole doesn2t usually
hurt them 6hile sarring in a kung (u class.
Problem :
9ome eole argue that...
1. ;ither creationism is true or e'olution is true.
2. ;'olutionists can2t e.lain ho6 the eye could e'ol'e.
*. /here(ore> creationism is true.
&o6e'er...
1. /hings could e'ol'e that 6e can2t e.lain yet.
2. I( things could e'ol'e that 6e can2t e.lain yet> then the eye might ha'e e'ol'ed.
*. I( the eye might ha'e e'ol'ed> then the a%o'e creationist argument is inadeBuate.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e creationist argument is inadeBuate.
)5
Problem 1;
9amantha and George ha'e a discussion.
9amantha argues that...
1. /here2s nothing a%out ha'ing red hair that makes eole e'il.
2. I( there2s nothing a%out ha'ing red hair that makes eole e'il> then 6e should not %e re4udiced
against them.
*. /here(ore> 6e should not %e re4udiced against eole 6ith red hair.
George then gi'es the o%4ection that...
1. &a'ing red hair makes eole 6itches.
2. I( ha'ing red hair makes eole 6itches> then ha'ing red hair makes them e'il.
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the %elie( that Ethere2s nothing a%out ha'ing red hair that makes
eole e'il.F
9amantha then relies that...
1. We ha'e no reason to %elie'e 6itches e.ist.
2. I( 6e ha'e no reason to %elie'e 6itches e.ist> then 6e ha'e no reason to %elie'e ha'ing red hair
makes eole 6itches.
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the %elie( that Eha'ing red hair makes eole 6itches.F
)5
Ans$ers
Problem 1
Problem 2
)!
Problem 3
Problem 3
))
Problem 4
Problem 6
)-
Problem 8
Problem 9
-0
Problem :
-1
Problem 1;
-2
Part III: Making distinctions 5ith argument maps
+rgument mas can hel us 'isualiAe and understand imortant distinctions. /his section discusses
ho6 to aroriately understand arguments in order to hel us illustrate the (ollo6ing distinctions using
argument mas:
1. /he di((erence %et6een remises and conclusions.
2. /he di((erence %et6een multile remises and multile arguments.
*. /he di((erence %et6een suorting argument and o%4ections.
0. /he di((erence %et6een o%4ections against remises and conclusions.
-*
Chapter 13: %istinguishing premises *rom conclusions
It can %e hel(ul to realiAe ho6 to distinguish remises (rom conclusions 6hen they are not e.licitly
la%eled in order to %etter understand the di((erence %et6een the t6o.
(1&.1 6(amples of distinguishing premises from conclusions
/his section ro'ides (i'e e.amles o( un(inished argument mas along 6ith an e.lanation
concerning ho6 6e should (inish them. /his 6ill hel clari(y ho6 6e can determine 6hen statements
are remises or conclusions. +ll the remises o( these argument mas 6ill %e art o( a single argument
in suort o( the conclusion.
/he (ollo6ing are (i'e tis to hel us di((erentiate remises (rom conclusions:
1. Consider e'ery com%ination o( remises and conclusions i( necessary.
2. In general> i( the remises are true> then the conclusion should %e true. /he remises should
imly that the conclusion is true as long as 6e assume they are true.
*. In general> the remises should 6arrant greater con(idence than the conclusion. Peole o(ten
use remises others are likely to agree 6ith in order to get us to agree to a contro'ersial
conclusion.
0. In general> no remises should %e e.traneous. +ll the remises should contri%ute to assuring us
that the conclusion is true.
5. /he remises should intuiti'ely imly that the conclusion is true. /he remises and conclusion
should ha'e an intuiti'e connection. @or e.amle> the argument that Ethe sky is %lueK all men
are mortalK there(ore> i( the sky is %lue> then all men are mortalF is counterintuiti'e.
-0
Example 1
What are the remises and 6hat is the conclusion, $et2s consider all three o( our otions:
3tion 1
1. +ll dogs ha'e 1?+. "remise#
2. +ll animals ha'e 1?+. "remise#
*. /here(ore> all dogs are animals. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, ?o> %ecause there might %e things that ha'e 1?+ other
than animals.
3tion 2
1. +ll dogs are animals. "remise#
2. +ll dogs ha'e 1?+. "remise#
*. /here(ore> all animals ha'e 1?+. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, ?o> %ecause the remises don2t assure us that animals
other than dogs ha'e 1?+. We could concei'e o( a 6orld 6here all dogs ha'e 1?+> %ut no cats ha'e
1?+ at the same time.
3tion *
1. +ll animals ha'e 1?+. "remise#
2. +ll dogs are animals. "remise#
-5
*. /here(ore> all dogs ha'e 1?+. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Res> %ecause it 6ould %e imossi%le (or dogs not to
ha'e 1?+ considering that they are animals and all animals ha'e 1?+. /here(ore> otion * roerly
identi(ies the remises and conclusion.
We can then comlete the argument ma "in red# as the (ollo6ing:
/he udated argument mas 6ill not al6ays ha'e the conclusion on to "as is traditional# to make it
clear ho6 6e can take incomlete argument mas and udate them> no matter 6here the remises or
conclusions are located.
Example 2
-5
What are the remises and 6hat2s the conclusion, $et2s consider all three o( our otions:
3tion 1
1. 1ucks are not dinosaurs. "remise#
2. 1ucks are %irds. "remise#
*. /here(ore> either ducks are %irds or dinosaurs. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Res. /he (act that ducks are %irds guarantees that ducks
are either %irds or dinosaurs. &o6e'er> 6e 6ould then ha'e an e.traneous remise. /he assumtion
that ducks are not dinosaurs could %e remo'ed (rom the argument entirely.
3tion 2
1. ;ither ducks are %irds or dinosaurs. "remise#
2. 1ucks are %irds. "remise#
*. /here(ore> ducks are not dinosaurs. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, I( it2s imossi%le (or all or some %irds to %e dinosaurs>
then yes. &o6e'er> the 6ord 2or2 here could %e inclusi'e. In that case it means EandSorF and in that case
it2s ossi%le (or %oth otions to %e true. Perhas ducks are %irds and dinosaurs.
3tion *
1. ;ither ducks are %irds or dinosaurs. "remise#
2. 1ucks are not dinosaurs. "remise#
*. /here(ore> ducks are %irds. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Res> and none o( the remises are e.traneous. It2s
imossi%le (or ducks to %e nonC%irds i( ducks aren2t dinosaurs> and they are either %irds or dinosaurs.
-!
/he udated argument ma is the (ollo6ing:
Example 3
What are the remises and 6hat is the conclusion, $et2s consider our three otions:
3tion 1
1. We should drink 6ater. "remise#
2. I( 6e need to drink 6ater to li'e> then 6e should drink 6ater. "remise#
*. /here(ore> 6e need to drink 6ater to li'e. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, ?o> %ecause it2s not clear that 6e should drink 6ater
-)
%ecause 6e need to drink 6ater to li'e. /here might %e some other reason that 6e should drink 6ater. I(
so> 6e might not need to drink 6ater to li'e and 6e should still drink 6ater any6ay.
3tion 2
1. We should drink 6ater. "remise#
2. We need to drink 6ater to li'e. "remise#
*. /here(ore> i( 6e need to drink 6ater to li'e> then 6e should drink 6ater. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Perhas> %ut that is a counterintuiti'e argument
%ecause the conclusion seems to imly that 6e should drink 6ater %ecause 6e need it to li'e> %ut none
o( the remises could su((iciently imly that conclusion.
3tion *
1. I( 6e need to drink 6ater to li'e> then 6e should drink 6ater. "remise#
2. We need to drink 6ater to li'e. "remise#
*. /here(ore> 6e should drink 6ater. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Res> and there are no e.traneous remises. /his
argument imlies that 6e should drink 6ater %ecause 6e need it to li'e. /his otion correctly identi(ies
the remises and conclusion. /he udated argument ma looks like the (ollo6ing:
--
Example 3
What are the remises and 6hat is the conclusion, $et2s consider our otions:
3tion 1
1. Teus could %e a god. "remise#
2. I( some eole are gods> then Teus could %e a god. "remise#
*. /here(ore> some eole are gods. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, ?o> %ecause neither remise assures us that any gods
e.ist at all.
3tion 2
1. Teus could %e a god. "remise#
2. 9ome eole are gods. "remise#
*. /here(ore> i( some eole are gods> then Teus could %e a god. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Perhas> %ut that 6ould %e a counterintuiti'e
argument. /here could %e no connection %et6een Teus %eing a god and some eole %eing a god. It2s
not clear that Teus could %e a god %ecause some eole are gods.
3tion *
1. I( some eole are gods> then Teus could %e a god. "remise#
2. 9ome eole are gods. "remise#
*. /here(ore> Teus could %e a god. "conclusion#
100
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Res> %ecause it2s imossi%le (or %oth remises to %e
true and the conclusion to %e (alse. /his otion correctly identi(ies the remises and conclusion.
/he udated argument ma looks like the (ollo6ing:
Example 4
101
What are the remises and 6hat is the conclusion, $et2s consider our otions:
3tion 1
1. Gold is not an organism. "remise#
2. Gold is not a tye o( animal. "remise.#
*. /here(ore> i( gold is a tye o( animal> then it is an organism. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Perhas> %ut that is a counterintuiti'e argument. /here
is no intuiti'e connection %et6een these remises and the conclusion.
3tion 2
1. Gold is not a tye o( animal. "remise#
2. I( gold is a tye o( animal> then it is an organism. "remise#
*. /here(ore> gold is not an organism. "conclusion#
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, ?o> %ecause 6e can2t dismiss the ossi%ility that some
organisms are nonCanimals. "In (act> lants are organisms that aren2t animals.#
3tion *
1. I( gold is a tye o( animal> then it is an organism. "remise#
2. Gold is not a tye o( organism "remise#
*. /here(ore> gold is not a tye o( animal.
Can 6e in(er the conclusion (rom the remises, Res> %ecause it2s imossi%le (or the remises to %e true
and the conclusion to %e (alse. 3tion * correctly identi(ies the remises and conclusion.
/he udated argument ma looks like the (ollo6ing:
102
(1&." Practice distinguishing bet5een premises and conclusions
/his section 6ill resent ten incomlete argument mas. Rou can then decide 6hich %o.es contain
remises and 6hich %o.es contain the conclusions> and comlete the argument mas. /he ans6ers 6ill
%e gi'en a(ter6ard.
Problem 1
Problem 2
10*
Problem 3
Problem 3
100
Problem 4
Problem 6
105
Problem 8
Problem 9
105
Problem :
Problem 1;
10!
Ans$ers
Problem 1
Problem 2
10)
Problem 3
Problem 3
10-
Problem 4
Problem 6
110
Problem 8
Problem 9
111
Problem :
Problem 1;
112
Chapter 14: !o" to distinguish &et"een multiple premises and multiple
arguments
+lmost all arguments should ha'e multile remises> and it2s also ossi%le to gi'e more than one
argument (or the same conclusion. /his chater 6ill discuss the (ollo6ing:
1. Why it2s imortant to kno6 the di((erence %et6een multile remises and multile arguments.
2. &o6 6e can make the distinction.
*. ;.amles o( assages that either contain multile remises or multile arguments.
(1*.1 'h% the distinction bet5een multiple premises and multiple
arguments is important.
/here are at least t6o ma4or reasons 6hy it2s imortant to realiAe the di((erence %et6een multile
remises and multile arguments. 3ne> 6e need to understand ho6 arguments 6ork and 6hy they tend
to need multile remises. /6o> 6e need to realiAe ho6 o%4ections 6ork and 6hy 6e sometimes need
to o%4ect to conclusions.
<o$ arguments $ork1
@irst> arguments almost al6ays reBuire more than one remise to su((iciently ro'e the conclusion to %e
true. @or e.amle> E9ocrates is a mortal %ecause 9ocrates is a manF is incomlete %ecause it is
comati%le 6ith the assumtion that some men are immortal. It reBuires us to assume that no men are
mortal.
9econd> multile remises o( a single argument are intricately connected> %ut multile arguments aren2t.
@or e.amle> E9ocrates is a mortal %ecause he2s a man and all men are mortalF reBuires %oth intricately
connected remises. I( %oth remises are true> then the conclusion has to %e true. &o6e'er> i( one o( the
remises is (alse> then the argument no longer gi'es us any reason to agree 6ith the conclusion.
In contrast> consider ho6 multile arguments (or a single conclusion are not intricately connected. @or
e.amle> EI kno6 it2s generally 6rong to hurt eole %ecause I2'e (elt ain and kno6 6hat it2s likeF and
EI kno6 it2s generally 6rong to hurt eole %ecause it2s art o( the meaning o( the 6ord 26rong2F are
t6o di((erent arguments and gi'e us t6o di((erent reasons to agree 6ith the conclusion. We kno6 that
these arguments are not intricately connected %ecause one o( the arguments could %e re(uted and 6e
could still ha'e su((icient reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. I( 6e (ind out the other argument has
true remises> then 6e 6ill kno6 the conclusion is true as 6ell.
?ote that a conclusion could %e true> e'en i( all our arguments (or that conclusion are oorly reasoned.
It2s also ossi%le that something is true that 6e simly don2t kno6 ho6 to 4usti(y using argumentation
roerly. @or e.amle> it seems 'ery di((icult to 4usti(y 6hy eole should %elie'e that E1O1P2F using
arguments.
11*
<o$ ob5ections $ork1
+ success(ul o%4ection to a remise generally ro'es that 6e should re4ect an entire argument> %ut there
could %e other arguments (or the same conclusion that ro'e it to %e true. @or e.amle> I could argue
that Ethe 9un 6ill rise tomorro6 %ecause the 9un is eternalK and i( the 9un is eternal> then it 6ill rise
tomorro6.F We could re(ute the remise that Ethe 9un is eternal>F so that the argument gi'es us no
reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. ;'en so> %etter arguments are still a'aila%le. "@or e.amle> 6e
kno6 the 9un 6ill rise tomorro6 %ased on the %est redictions (rom astrohysicists.#
=ultile arguments (or the same conclusion are imortant %ecause they gi'es us redundancy. I( one o(
the arguments is un4usti(ied> then it2s still ossi%le that one o( the other arguments gi'es us a su((icient
reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. We only need one argument to ro'e a conclusion to %e true.
&o6e'er> redundancy is o(ten unnecessary %ecause a single good argument that ro'es a conclusion is
good enough. $ess reasona%le arguments 6on2t hel at that oint.
(1*." #o5 to make the distinction.
We can %etter make the distinction %et6een multile remises and multile arguments no6 that 6e
kno6 6hy the distinction is imortant. =ultile remises are all intricately connected and multile
arguments are redundant. I( 6e can re4ect a remise and still otentially ha'e a good reason to agree
6ith the conclusion> then the remise 6as either e.traneous or a separate argument (or the conclusion.
9ometimes arguments ha'e e.traneous remises that are totally unnecessary. @or e.amle> E9ocrates is
a hilosoherK he2s a manK and all men are mortalK so 9ocrates is a mortalF has an e.traneous remise
"that 9ocrates is a hilosoher#. +lso kee in mind that e.traneous remises are generally either
irrele'ant or reetiti'e. 9ocrates %eing a hilosoher 6as irrele'ant. "+ reetiti'e remise 6ould %e Eall
mammals are mortalF %ecause it o'erlas 6ith the remise that states that Eall men are mortal.F#
/he (ollo6ing three Buestions can %e asked to hel determine i( 6e are dealing 6ith multile remises
or multile arguments:
1. I( a remise can %e remo'ed 6ithout re'enting the other remises (rom gi'ing us a reason to
agree 6ith the conclusion> can the remise still %e considered to %e art o( a good reason to
agree to the conclusion, I( so> it2s a searate argument. I( not> it is e.traneous.
2. +re any o( the remises e.traneous, I( so> consider it to %e art o( a multiCremised argument
"rather than a searate argument#.
*. Could an o%4ection to a remise ro'e all the other remises inadeBuate (or reaching the
conclusion, I( so> 6e are dealing 6ith a single argument.
110
(1*.& 6(amples of distinguishing multiple premises from multiple
arguments
/his section resents (i'e assages that either contain multile arguments or multile remises. It
e.lains ho6 6e can distinguish %et6een the t6o> and sho6s 6hat the argument ma o( the assage
can look like.
Passage 1
+ll terosaurs are retiles. ?o dinosaurs are retiles. /here(ore> no terosaurs are
dinosaurs.
$et2s consider the three Buestions that 6ere discussed:
1. If a premise can be removed without preventing the other premises from giving us a reason to
agree with the conclusion& can the premise still be considered to be part of a good reason to
agree to the conclusion? /here are no remises o( this kind.
2. (re any of the premises etraneous? ?o.
*. Could an ob'ection to a premise prove all the other premises inade)uate for reaching the
conclusion? Res. +ll the remises are needed. I( 6e kno6 any o( them are (alse> then the
argument 6ill no longer gi'e us a su((icient reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. /here(ore> 6e
ha'e a single argument 6ith multile remises.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
115
Passage 2
We shouldn2t hurt eole e.cet as a last resort %ecause rational eole 6ould agree to
such a rule and 6e kno6 hurting eole is %ad (rom ersonal e.erience.
$et2s consider the three Buestions that 6ere discussed:
1. If a premise can be removed without preventing the other premises from giving us a reason to
agree with the conclusion& can the premise still be considered to be part of a good reason to
agree to the conclusion? Res> either remise can %e remo'ed 6ithout re'enting the other
remise (rom gi'ing us a reason to agree 6ith the conclusionK and %oth remises can %e
considered to %e art o( a reason to agree 6ith the conclusion in isolation. /here(ore> 6e ha'e
t6o searate arguments (or the same conclusion.
2. (re any of the premises etraneous? ?o.
*. Could an ob'ection to a premise prove all the other premises inade)uate for reaching the
conclusion? ?o. /here(ore> 6e don2t ha'e any multiCremised arguments.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
115
Passage 3
+ll liAards are retiles. +ll retiles are animals. +ll liAards are li'ing organisms.
/here(ore> all liAards are animals.
$et2s consider the three Buestions that 6ere discussed:
1. If a premise can be removed without preventing the other premises from giving us a reason to
agree with the conclusion& can the premise still be considered to be part of a good reason to
agree to the conclusion? /he remise Eall liAards are li'ing organismsF can %e remo'ed and the
other remises could still ro'e the conclusion to %e true> %ut Eall liAards are li'ing organismsF
can2t %e considered to %e a good reason to to agree to the conclusion %y itsel(. /here(ore> Eall
liAards are li'ing organismsF is an e.traneous remise.
2. (re any of the premises etraneous? Res> so it is art o( a multiCremised argument.
*. Could an ob'ection to a premise prove all the other premises inade)uate for reaching the
conclusion? Res> 6e need to agree that all liAards are retiles and that all retiles are animals to
conclude that all liAards are animals. I( either o( these remises are (alse> then the argument 6ill
(ail to gi'e us a su((icient reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. /here(ore> these t6o remises
are art o( a single argument.
/he argument ma (or the assage is the (ollo6ing:
11!
Passage 3
8iologists agree that %read is (ood> and they agree that %read is not oisonous. 8read
6as (ood e'ery day o( my li(e. /here(ore> %read 6ill ro%a%ly still %e (ood tomorro6.
$et2s consider the three Buestions that 6ere discussed:
1. If a premise can be removed without preventing the other premises from giving us a reason to
agree with the conclusion& can the premise still be considered to be part of a good reason to
agree to the conclusion? Res> 6e can remo'e the remise that E%iologists agree that %read is not
oisonousF and %oth other remises could still gi'e us a good reason to agree 6ith the
conclusion. +dditionally the %elie( that E%iologists agree that %read is not oisonousF is not a
searate reason (or us to agree 6ith the conclusion. /here(ore> that remise is e.traneous.
2. (re any of the premises etraneous? Res> there(ore it is art o( a single argument.
*. Could an ob'ection to a premise prove all the other premises inade)uate for reaching the
conclusion? ?o> i( %iologists don2t agree that %read is (ood> then the (act that %read 6as (ood
e'ery day o( my li(e 6ould still %e an incomlete reason to agree 6ith the conclusion.
+dditionally> i( %read 6as not (ood e'ery day o( my li(e> %ut all %iologists agree that %read is
(oodK then 6e 6ould still ha'e an incomlete reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. /here(ore> 6e
ha'e t6o searate arguments> and one o( them has an e.traneous remise.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
11)
Passage 4
Pain is %ad and 6e generally shouldn2t cause %ad things to e.ist. We should generally %e
resect(ul o( eole and torturing eole is disresect(ul. /here(ore> torturing eole is
generally 6rong.
$et2s consider the three Buestions that 6ere discussed:
1. If a premise can be removed without preventing the other premises from giving us a reason to
agree with the conclusion& can the premise still be considered to be part of a good reason to
agree to the conclusion? Res> 6e can re4ect the remises that state E6e should generally %e
resect(ul o( eole and torturing eole is disresect(ulF 6ithout re'enting the other remises
(rom gi'ing us a reason to agree 6ith the conclusionK and those remises ro'ide us 6ith a
reason to agree 6ith the conclusion as 6ell. /here(ore> 6e are resented 6ith multile
arguments.
2. (re any of the premises etraneous? ?o.
*. Could an ob'ection to a premise prove all the other premises inade)uate for reaching the
conclusion? Res. /he remises Eain is %adF and E6e generally shouldn2t cause %ad things to
e.istF must %oth %e kno6n to %e true or 6e 6ill (ail to kno6 the conclusion is true.
+dditionally> 6e need to agree that E6e should generally %e resect(ul o( eoleF and Etorturing
eole is disresect(ulF to ha'e a good reason to agree 6ith the conclusion as 6ell. /here(ore>
6e ha'e t6o searate arguments that %oth ha'e t6o remises each.
/he argument ma (or the assage is the (ollo6ing:
11-
(1*.* Practice distinguishing multiple premises from multiple arguments
/his section contains ten assages to %e used as ractice ro%lems. Rou can decide i( the assages
contain one argument 6ith multile remises or multile arguments> and create argument mas (or
them. /he ans6ers 6ill %e gi'en as argument mas a(ter6ard.
Problem 1
?o animals are made o( metal. Gold is a metal. /here(ore> no animals are made o( gold.
Problem 2
It2s al6ays 6rong to kill eole and the death enalty is a cruel and unusual unishment. /here(ore> 6e
should a%olish the death enalty.
Problem 3
9ome human %eings are not gods. +ll human %eings are eole. /here(ore> some human %eings are not
gods.
Problem 3
+ll mammals are 6armC%looded. +ll (ish are coldC%looded. /here(ore> no (ish are mammals.
Problem 4
?o gold coins are organic and no gold coins are ali'e. /here(ore> no gold coins are dogs.
Problem 6
8eing closeCminded causes eole to irrationally dismiss e'idence against their %elie(s. I( %eing closeC
minded causes eole to irrationally dismiss e'idence against their %elie(s> then they could ha'e (alse
%elie(s. I( %eing closeCminded causes eole to irrationally dismiss e'idence against their %elie(s> then
6e should try to a'oid %eing closeCminded. /here(ore> 6e should try to a'oid %eing closeCminded.
Problem 8
8eing gulli%le causes eole to irrationally agree 6ith %elie(s suorted %y oor e'idence> and some
%elie(s suorted %y oor e'idence contradict scienti(ic kno6ledge. 8eing gulli%le causes eole to
ha'e more (alse %elie(s. /here(ore> 6e should try to a'oid %eing gulli%le.
Problem 9
Peole 6ho (orm irrational %elie(s are more likely to %elie'e that 6e should re4ect medical science.
Peole 6ho (orm irrational %elie(s are more likely to %elie'e that 6e should harm innocent eole (or
120
%eing 6itches and that all 6itches deser'e to su((er. /here(ore> 6e should try to a'oid (orming
irrational %elie(s.
Problem :
Irrational %elie(s are more likely to contradict scienti(ic e'idence and 6e should 6ant to a'oid
contradicting scienti(ic e'idence. Irrational %elie(s are more likely to contradict the most 4usti(ied
ethical rinciles and 6e should 6ant to a'oid contradicting the most 4usti(ied ethical rinciles.
/here(ore> 6e should 6ant to a'oid ha'ing irrational %elie(s.
Problem 1;
Peole 6ho (orm %elie(s in an irrational 6ay are more likely to ha'e harm(ul %elie(s and are more
likely to (alsely think that %eing 'iolent is 4usti(ied. Peole 6ho are closeCminded or gulli%le are more
likely to (orm %elie(s in an irrational 6ay. /here(ore> eole 6ho are closeCminded or gulli%le are more
likely to ha'e harm(ul %elie(s.
Ans$ers
Problem 1
?o animals are made o( metal. Gold is a metal. /here(ore> no animals are made o( gold.
121
Problem 2
It2s al6ays 6rong to kill eole and the death enalty is a cruel and unusual unishment.
/here(ore> 6e should a%olish the death enalty.
Problem 3
&uman %eings are not gods. &uman %eings are eole. /here(ore> some human %eings
are not gods.
"3ne o( these remises is e.traneous.#
122
Problem 3
+ll mammals are 6armC%looded. +ll (ish are coldC%looded. /here(ore> no (ish are
mammals.
Problem 4
?o gold coins are organic and no gold coins are ali'e. /here(ore> no gold coins are dogs.
12*
Problem 6
8eing closeCminded causes eole to irrationally dismiss e'idence against their %elie(s.
I( %eing closeCminded causes eole to irrationally dismiss e'idence against their
%elie(s> then they could ha'e (alse %elie(s. I( %eing closeCminded causes eole to
irrationally dismiss e'idence against their %elie(s> then 6e should try to a'oid %eing
closeCminded. /here(ore> 6e should try to a'oid %eing closeCminded.
"/he second remise is e.traneous.#
120
Problem 8
8eing gulli%le causes eole to irrationally agree 6ith %elie(s suorted %y oor
e'idence> and some %elie(s suorted %y oor e'idence contradict scienti(ic kno6ledge.
8eing gulli%le causes eole to ha'e more (alse %elie(s. /here(ore> 6e should try to
a'oid %eing gulli%le.
125
Problem 9
Peole 6ho (orm irrational %elie(s are more likely to %elie'e that 6e should re4ect
medical science. Peole 6ho (orm irrational %elie(s are more likely to %elie'e that 6e
should harm innocent eole (or %eing 6itches and that all 6itches deser'e to su((er.
/here(ore> 6e should try to a'oid (orming irrational %elie(s.
125
Problem :
Irrational %elie(s are more likely to contradict scienti(ic e'idence and 6e should 6ant to
a'oid contradicting scienti(ic e'idence. Irrational %elie(s are more likely to contradict
the most 4usti(ied ethical rinciles and 6e should 6ant to a'oid contradicting the most
4usti(ied ethical rinciles. /here(ore> 6e should 6ant to a'oid ha'ing irrational %elie(s.
12!
Problem 1;
Peole 6ho (orm %elie(s in an irrational 6ay are more likely to ha'e harm(ul %elie(s and
are more likely to (alsely think that %eing 'iolent is 4usti(ied. Peole 6ho are closeC
minded or gulli%le are more likely to (orm %elie(s in an irrational 6ay. /here(ore> eole
6ho are closeCminded or gulli%le are more likely to ha'e harm(ul %elie(s.
12)
Chapter 15: !o" to distinguish &et"een supporting arguments and
o&0ections1
It is imortant to kno6 ho6 to distinguish suorting arguments (rom o%4ections so that 6e can ma
%oth suorting arguments and o%4ections in a single argument ma and kno6 ho6 they relate. /his
chater includes a discussion concerning the (ollo6ing:
1. /he di((erence %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections.
2. Why the distinction is imortant.
*. &o6 6e can make the distinction.
0. ;.amles concerning ho6 to make the distinction.
(1-.1 'hat are supporting arguments and ob/ections)
;'ery argument is suosed to gi'e a reason to agree 6ith a conclusion> %ut some conclusions are
negati'eDa re4ection o( a %elie( or (orm o( reasoning. +rguments simly in (a'or o( a %elie( are
Esuorting argumentsF and arguments that gi'e us a reason to re4ect a %elie( or (orm o( reasoning are
Eo%4ections.F @or e.amle> E9ocrates is mortal %ecause he is a manF is a ositi'e argument and Ethat
argument is inadeBuate %ecause some men might %e immortalF is an o%4ection.
(1-." 'h% is this distinction important)
Lnderstanding the distinction %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections is imortant %ecause it can
hel us %etter understand the (ollo6ing:
1. &o6 de%ates 6ork.
2. &o6 t6o arguments can %e %oth (or and against a %elie(.
*. &o6 o%4ections can relate to other arguments or %elie(s.
>e can better understand debates1
1e%ates are e.tended discussions concerning arguments (or and against a certain %elie(. 1e%ates
contain arguments (or and against a single %elie( in addition to o%4ections against oosing arguments.
I( arguments only e.isted in isolation> then the distinction %et6een suorting arguments and
o%4ections 6ould not %e an imortant oneK %ut many arguments e.ist as art o( a de%ate. @or e.amle>
one erson can think 6e should continue to use the death enalty against certain criminals and someone
else might disagree. 8oth eole 6ould then ha'e a de%ate i( they argued (or their osition and against
the oosing osition.
8y realiAing the di((erence %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections> 6e can consider a single
%elie( and arguments %oth (or and against that one %elie( as 6ell as arguments against other arguments.
12-
>e can better understand )o$ arguments can be "or and against a single belie"1
Lnderstanding the di((erence %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections can hel us understand
ho6 t6o oosing arguments relate to a single %elie(. 9omeone could argue that the death enalty is
6rong %ecause human li(e has 'alue> and another erson can argue that the death enalty is not 6rong
%ecause eole 6ho kill others deser'e to die. +n argument ma that sho6s these oosing arguments
is the (ollo6ing:
?ote that oosing arguments o( this kind lea'e us 6ith a ro%lem. I( 6e kno6 the remises o( each
argument are true and the arguments are er(ectly reasona%le> then 6e 6ill ha'e a reason to conclude
that something is %oth true and (alse at the same time. /hat is inconsistent> so at least one o( the
arguments must (ail at %eing su((iciently reasona%le. We need to kno6 i( one or %oth o( the arguments
ultimately (ail to su((iciently gi'e us a reason to %elie'e a conclusion to %e true or (alse.
>e can better understand )o$ ob5ections relate to ot)er arguments or belie"s1
Lnderstanding the di((erence %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections can hel us understand
ho6 o%4ections relate to oosing arguments. /he (act that t6o eole disagree and each o((er an
argument to agree 6ith his or her ersonal osition isn2t enough (or a good de%ate %ecause 6e might
not kno6 6hose argument is %est. 8oth eole should consider the oosing arguments and try to
e.lain 6hy they are uncon'incing. /he arguments can %e uncon'incing i( the remises are un4usti(ied
or i( the remises are inadeBuate to ro'e the conclusion to %e true.
@or e.amle> consider the arguments (or and against the death enalty. 3ne erson could re4ect the
argument that Ethe death enalty is 6rong %ecause human li(e has 'alueF %y ointing out that the death
enalty might actually sa'e li'es i( it2s needed to kee a serial killer (rom killing more eole. +n
argument ma o( that discussion looks like the (ollo6ing:
1*0
Mee in mind that o%4ections to arguments "remises or (orms o( reasoning# can also lea'e us 6ith a
ro%lem. I( 6e (ind out that an argument (or or against a osition is un4usti(ied> then 6e still need to
kno6 i( 6e should agree to that osition or not. /he (act that one argument (ails to adeBuately 4usti(y a
%elie( does not imly that no argument could adeBuately 4usti(y the %elie(.
(1-.& #o5 to make the distinction
/he (ollo6ing Buestions can hel us distinguish %et6een suorting arguments and o%4ections:
1. 1oes the argument conclude a belief is (alse> inadeBuately 4usti(ied> inadeBuately reasona%le> or
should %e re4ected, I( so> the argument is an o%4ection.
2. 1oes the argument conclude that a form of reasoning is logically in'alid or inaroriate, I( so>
the argument is an o%4ection.
I( the ans6er to %oth these Buestions is> E?o>F then the argument is a suorting argument.
+lso kee in mind that o%4ections o(ten conclude that something is Enot the case.F 9aying that means
1*1
the same thing as saying that something is (alse. /he language used in arguments is di'erse> so 6e need
to kee the intent o( the argument in mind.
(1-.* 6(amples of distinguishing bet5een supporting arguments and
ob/ections.
/his section contains (i'e assages o( suorting arguments andSor o%4ections> and e.lanations 6ill %e
gi'en concerning ho6 6e can determine 6hich assages contain suorting arguments and 6hich ones
contain o%4ections.
Passage 1
?o men are immortal. 9ocrates is a man. /here(ore> 9ocrates is not immortal.
$et2s consider the t6o Buestions that 6ere suggested:
1. Does the argument conclude a belief is false& inade)uately 'ustified& inade)uately reasonable&
or should be re'ected? Res.
2. Does the argument conclude that a form of reasoning is logically invalid or inappropriate? ?o.
+ single EResF ans6er is su((icient to kno6 this is an o%4ection. /he a%o'e argument states that it2s
(alse that E9ocrates is immortal.F /he argument ma (or this assage looks like the (ollo6ing:
1*2
Passage 2
I( all liAards are retiles> then all liAards are coldC%looded. +ll liAards are retiles.
/here(ore> all liAards are coldC%looded.
$et2s consider the t6o Buestions that 6ere suggested:
1. Does the argument conclude a belief is false& inade)uately 'ustified& inade)uately reasonable&
or should be re'ected? ?o.
2. Does the argument conclude that a form of reasoning is logically invalid or inappropriate? ?o.
?either ans6er is> ERes>F so this assage contains a suorting argument. /he argument ma (or the
argument is the (ollo6ing:
Passage 3
9ome eole aren2t doctors. +ll eole are mammals. /here(ore> some mammals aren2t
doctors.
$et2s consider the t6o Buestions that 6ere suggested:
1. Does the argument conclude a belief is false& inade)uately 'ustified& inade)uately reasonable&
or should be re'ected? ?o.
2. Does the argument conclude that a form of reasoning is logically invalid or inappropriate? ?o.
We kno6 that a suorting argument is %eing resented %ecause the ans6er to %oth Buestions 6as>
E?o.F /he argument ma (or the argument is the (ollo6ing:
1**
+nother otion is to 6rite this as an o%4ection that ooses the conclusion that Eall mammals are
doctors.F "9ometimes an argument could %e reasona%ly interreted as either a suorting argument or
an o%4ection.#
Passage 3
+nn argues> EWe kno6 ghosts ro%a%ly don2t e.ist %ecause 6e lack hysical e'idence o(
them> and it2s more likely that eole are letting their imaginations go 6ild than that
ghosts e.ist.F Je(( then relies> EWe kno6 ghosts ro%a%ly do e.ist %ecause eole o(ten
see dead lo'ed ones in dreams> and 6e can (eel that the dead lo'ed ones in dreams are
ghosts.F
$et2s consider the t6o Buestions that 6ere suggested:
1. Does the argument conclude a belief is false& inade)uately 'ustified& inade)uately reasonable&
or should be re'ected? /here are t6o oosing arguments resented here> and +nn2s argument
concludes that it2s (alse that ghosts ro%a%ly e.ist and Je((2s argument concludes that ghosts
ro%a%ly do e.ist.
2. Does the argument conclude that a form of reasoning is logically invalid or inappropriate? ?o.
1*0
We 6ill conclude that +nn2s argument is an o%4ection and Je((2s argument is a suorting argument. /he
argument ma (or %oth o( these arguments is the (ollo6ing:
Passage 4
=ark argues> EWe should %urn 6omen 6ith red hair at the stake (or %eing 6itches
%ecause "a# all 6omen 6ith red hair are 6itches> and "%# i( all 6omen 6ith red hair are
6itches> then 6e should %urn them at the stake.F Jenni(er then relies> EWe ha'e no
reason to think 6omen 6ith red hair are 6itchesK and i( 6e ha'e no reason to think
6omen 6ith red hair are 6itches> 6e shouldn2t %urn 6omen 6ith red hair at the stake (or
%eing 6itches. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t %urn 6omen 6ith red hair at the stake (or %eing
6itches.F
$et2s consider the t6o Buestions that 6ere suggested:
1. Does the argument conclude a belief is false& inade)uately 'ustified& inade)uately reasonable&
or should be re'ected? =ark and Jenni(er each o((er arguments. /his time Jenni(er2s argument
concludes that E6e shouldn2t %urn 6omen 6ith red hair at the stake (or %eing 6itches>F 6hich is
is a re4ection o( =ark2s conclusionDthat E6e should %urn 6omen 6ith red stake (or %eing
6itches.F /here(ore> Jenni(er2s argument is an o%4ection.
2. Does the argument conclude that a form of reasoning is logically invalid or inappropriate? ?o.
Lsing these t6o Buestions 6e can conclude that Jenni(er2s argument is an o%4ection and =ark2s
argument is a suorting argument. /he argument ma (or %oth these argument mas is the (ollo6ing:
1*5
(1-.- Practice distinguishing supporting arguments from ob/ections.
/his section 6ill resent ten assages each containing one or more suorting arguments andSor
o%4ections. Rou can identi(y 6hich arguments are suorting arguments and 6hich ones are o%4ections.
Rou can then create argument mas (or them. /he ans6ers 6ill %e gi'en a(ter6ard.
Problem 1
I( all insects are coldC%looded> then no insects are mammals. I( no insects are mammals> then no insects
are dogs. /here(ore> i( all insects are coldC%looded> then no insects are dogs.
Problem 2
;ither 9ocrates is immortal or he2s not a man. 9ocrates is a man. /here(ore> 9ocrates is not immortal.
Problem 3
9ome eole %elie'e that con'iction is a 'irtue> %ut 6e should %elie'e 6hate'er is reasona%le> and
sometimes eole ha'e con'ictions (or %elie(s that aren2t reasona%le.
1*5
Problem 3
+ll mammals are 6armC%looded. ?o liAards are 6armC%looded. /here(ore> no liAards are mammals.
Problem 4
9ome eole think that arguments are logical as long as they sound good. &o6e'er> some illogical
arguments sound good. I( some illogical arguments sound good> then some arguments that sound good
aren2t logical.
Problem 6
Julia argues that all mammals are li'ing organisms %ecause all mammals are animals> %ut George
argues that not all mammals are li'ing organisms %ecause unicorns are mammals that aren2t li'ing
organisms.
Problem 8
Cynthia argues that money is the root o( all e'il %ecause it moti'ates eole to harm others> and
Charles argues that money isn2t the root o( all e'il %ecause it is moti'ates eole to 6ork hard.
Problem 9
=ichelle argues that tra'eling %y train is %etter than dri'ing %ecause it2s a good lace to read> %ut 7alh
argues that tra'eling %y train isn2t %etter than dri'ing %ecause it2s (aster to dri'e.
Problem :
Julian argues> EI( 6hales ha'e (ins> they2re (ishK 6hales ha'e (insK there(ore> they are (ish.F +ndrea
relies> EI( 6hales are 6armC%looded> they2re not (ishK 6hales are 6armC%loodedK there(ore> they aren2t
(ish.F
Problem 1;
=ike argues that children should %e encouraged to Buestion authority %ecause it teaches them not to
%lindly (ollo6 leadersK and i( Buestioning authority teaches children not to %lindly (ollo6 leaders> then
6e should encourage them to Buestion authority. &o6e'er> $auren argues that children should not %e
encouraged to Buestion authority %ecause it 6ould teach them to %e diso%edientK and i( Buestioning
authority teaches children to %e diso%edient> then 6e shouldn2t teach them to Buestion authority.
1*!
Ans$ers
Problem 1
I( all insects are coldC%looded> then no insects are mammals. I( no insects are mammals>
then no insects are dogs. /here(ore> i( all insects are coldC%looded> then no insects are
dogs.
Problem 2
;ither 9ocrates is immortal or he2s not a man. 9ocrates is a man. /here(ore> 9ocrates is
not immortal.
/his argument ma could also %e o( a ositi'e argument that concludes that E9ocrates is mortal.F
1*)
Problem 3
9ome eole %elie'e that con'iction is a 'irtue> %ut 6e should %elie'e 6hate'er is
reasona%le and sometimes eole ha'e con'ictions (or %elie(s that aren2t reasona%le.
Problem 3
+ll mammals are 6armC%looded. ?o liAards are 6armC%looded. /here(ore> no liAards are
mammals.
1*-
Problem 4
9ome eole think that arguments are logical as long as they sound good. &o6e'er>
some illogical arguments sound good. I( some illogical arguments sound good> then
some arguments that sound good aren2t logical.
Problem 6
Julia argues that all mammals are li'ing organisms %ecause all mammals are animals>
%ut George argues that not all mammals are li'ing organisms %ecause unicorns are
mammals that aren2t li'ing organisms.
100
Problem 8
Cynthia argues that money is the root o( all e'il %ecause it moti'ates eole to harm
others> and Charles argues that money isn2t the root o( all e'il %ecause it is moti'ates
eole to 6ork hard.
Problem 9
=ichelle argues that tra'eling %y train is %etter than dri'ing %ecause it2s a good lace to
read> %ut 7alh argues that tra'eling %y train isn2t %etter than dri'ing %ecause it2s (aster
to dri'e.
101
Problem :
Julian argues> EI( 6hales ha'e (ins> they2re (ishK 6hales ha'e (insK there(ore> they are
(ish.F +ndrea relies> EI( 6hales are 6armC%looded> they2re not (ishK 6hales are 6armC
%loodedK there(ore> they aren2t (ish.F
102
Problem 1;
=ike argues that children should %e encouraged to Buestion authority %ecause it teaches
them not to %lindly (ollo6 leadersK and i( Buestioning authority teaches children not to
%lindly (ollo6 leaders> then 6e should encourage them to Buestion authority. &o6e'er>
$auren argues that children should not %e encouraged to Buestion authority %ecause it
6ould teach them to %e diso%edientK and i( Buestioning authority teaches children to %e
diso%edient> then 6e shouldn2t teach them to Buestion authority.
10*
Chapter 1: %istinguishing &et"een o&0ections to conclusions2 premises2
and *orms o* reasoning
3%4ections to remises and conclusions are the same as o%4ections to %elie(s. /hose are arguments that
gi'e us a reason to re4ect a certain %elie(. &o6e'er> there is still more to %e said a%out the distinction
%et6een o%4ections that are gi'en to conclusions> remises> and (orms o( reasoning.
+b5ections to conclusions
+n e.amle o( an o%4ection to a conclusion is the (ollo6ing:
1. 9omeone argues that kicking eole can hurt them> so it2s al6ays 6rong to kick eole.
2. &o6e'er> kicking eole 6hile sarring in kung (u class is not 6rong.
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the %elie( that Eit2s al6ays 6rong to kick eole.F
/hese statements can %e illustrated %y the (ollo6ing argument ma:
In this case there is %oth an argument (or and against a conclusion. +rguments are generally only
considered to %e Eo%4ectionsF 6hen someone actually %elie'es or argues (or the %elie( that is %eing
re4ected.
?otice that the o%4ection does not gi'e us any reason to re4ect the suorting argument. 3ne otential
shortcoming 6ith o%4ections to conclusions is that other eole might ha'e di((erent arguments (or the
conclusions. I( 6e are stuck 6ith an argument (or and an argument against a conclusion> then 6e still
need to kno6 i( either argument is rationally ersuasi'e or i( they are %oth rationally unersuasi'e.
3ther6ise it 6on2t %e clear i( 6e should accet the conclusion or not. I( 6e 6ant to ro'e a conclusion
100
to %e un4usti(ied> then 6e not only need an argument against the conclusionK %ut 6e also o(ten need to
sho6 6hy the arguments in suort o( the conclusion should %e re4ected %ecause a rationally
ersuasi'e argument 6ould reBuire us to %elie'e the conclusion to %e true.
+b5ections to premises
Persuasi'e arguments generally reBuire us to %elie'e that all o( the remises are 4usti(ied> so 6e can
generally re4ect arguments 6hen 6e (ind out one o( the remises are un4usti(iedK and o%4ections to
remises are suosed to tell us 6hy a remise should %e re4ected.
@or e.amle> consider someone 6ho argues that E9ocrates is a dog %ecause he is a mortal and all
mortals are dogs.F /his argument should %e re4ected %ecause 6e kno6 that a remise and the
conclusion is (alse: @irst> 6e kno6 it2s (alse that all mortals are dogs %ecause humans are also mortal.
9econd> it2s 6e kno6 (alse that Socrates is a dog %ecause 6e kno6 he 6as a human.
3ne otential shortcoming to o%4ections to remises is that an argument (or a conclusion can (ail e'en
though the conclusion is true. Consider someone 6ho argues that E9ocrates is mortal %ecause he is a
dog and all dogs are mortal.F In this case the argument should %e re4ected %ecause a remise is kno6n
to %e (alseD9ocrates is not a dog. ;'en so> the conclusion is still trueDIt2s true that 9ocrates is mortal.
/he argument ma o( an o%4ection to a remise sho6s the o%4ecting argument ointing to the seci(ic
remise %o. that2s %eing o%4ected to. @or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing o%4ection to a remise:
1. 9omeone argues that it2s al6ays 6rong to kick eole %ecause it2s al6ays 6rong to hurt
eole and kicking eole hurts them.
2. &o6e'er> it2s not 6rong to hurt eole 6hen you need to do so to rotect yoursel(.
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the remise that states that Eit2s al6ays 6rong to hurt eole.F
/his o%4ection can %e illustrated 6ith the (ollo6ing argument ma:
105
+b5ections to "orms o" reasoning
When 6e o%4ect to a (orm o( reasoning> 6e are o%4ecting to something other than a %elie(. /here are
'arious 6ays to o%4ect to arguments 6ithout o%4ecting to a articular %elie(. We can argue that the
oosing argument is logically in'alid or that the logical (orm not aroriate (or some other reason.
+n e.amle o( an in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. I( 9ocrates is a man> then he is mortal.
2. 9ocrates is mortal.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a man.
105
+n e.amle o( an argument ma o( an o%4ection to this argument is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument ma 6ill not %e discussed in detail %ecause logical 'alidity 6ill %e e.lored in detail
10!
later on. &o6e'er> it should %e noted that the o%4ection is (urther suorted %y another argument> 6hich
is in %lue rather than ink. +rguments that suort oosing remises are in %lue instead o( ink> e'en
though they could %e considered to %e part of the rele'ant o%4ection.
+nother e.amle o( an o%4ection to an argument 6ithout o%4ecting to a seci(ic %elie( in articular is
the (ollo6ing:
1. 9omeone argues that Ethere is li(e on another lanet in the gala.yK there is no li(e on
another lanet in the gala.yK there(ore there are other stars in the gala.y.F
2. &o6e'er> it2s imossi%le (or t6o contradictory statements to %oth %e true.
*. =oreo'er> the t6o remises are contradictory statements.
0. /here(ore> at least one o( the remises must %e (alse.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection looks like the (ollo6ing:
10)
/he conclusion o( the the a%o'e contradictory argument is true> %ut that2s not good enough. /he
ro%lem is the argument itsel( is (la6ed. We don2t kno6 6hich remise is (alse> %ut 6e don2t ha'e to.
We kno6 that at least one o( the remises has to %e (alse %ecause t6o contradictory statements can2t
%oth %e true. /he o%4ection oints to %oth remises to make it clear that either could %e (alse.
?otice that o%4ections to arguments that don2t o%4ect to seci(ic remises or conclusions don2t gi'e us a
good reason to re4ect the conclusion. In the argument a%o'e 6e kno6 that the conclusion is trueDthat
there are other stars in the gala.y> e'en though the argument (or that conclusion is (la6ed.
(10.1 #o5 to make the distinction
/he (ollo6ing Buestion can hel us make the distinction:
Is the o%4ection against a %elie(, I( so> then it2s either against the conclusion or a remise. In that
case consider 6hich %elie( the o%4ection re4ects. I( not> the o%4ection is against the (orm o(
reasoning o( the argument.
(10." 6(amples of distinguishing bet5een ob/ections against premises
and conclusions.
/his section 6ill resent (i'e assages containing o%4ections against remises and conclusions> and an
e.lanation 6ill %e resented as to ho6 6e can di((erentiate %et6een the t6o. We can kno6 6hether an
o%4ection is against a remise or conclusion %y realiAing 6hat %elie( is re4ected %y the o%4ection.
Passage 1
9ocrates isn2t a dog %ecause he2s a hilosoher and no hilosohers are dogs.
&ere the o%4ection is against the %elie( that E9ocrates is a dog>F 6hich is not used as a remise.
/here(ore> it is an o%4ection to a conclusion.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
10-
Passage 2
9arah argues that gay marriage should %e legal %ecause e'eryone should ha'e eBual
rights> %ut 7on argues that gay marriage shouldn2t %e legal %ecause homose.uality is
immoral.
&ere the o%4ection is against the %elie( that Egay marriage should %e legal>F 6hich isn2t used as a
remise. /here(ore> it is an o%4ection to a conclusion.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
150
Passage 3
Patricia argues that the death enalty is 6rong %ecause it isn2t needed to sa'e li'es> %ut
Patrick argues that sometimes the death enalty is needed to sa'e li'es %ecause 6e might
not al6ays ha'e the resources to imrison criminals.
&ere the o%4ection is against the %elie( Ethe death enalty is needed to sa'e li'es>F 6hich is a remise
o( Patricia2s argument.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
151
Passage 3
$auren argues> E9ometimes 6e should ha'e strong con'ictions %ecause sometimes 6e
can kno6 (or certain 6hat2s trueK and i( 6e can sometimes kno6 6hat2s true (or certain>
then sometimes 6e should ha'e strong con'ictions.F Paul then relies> EWe ne'er kno6
6hat2s true (or certain %ecause there2s al6ays a chance 6hat 6e %elie'e is (alseK and i(
there2s al6ays a chance 6hat 6e %elie'e is (alse> then 6e ne'er kno6 6hat2s true (or
certain.F
&ere the o%4ection is against the %elie( that Esometimes 6e kno6 6hat2s true (or certain>F 6hich is a
remise o( $auren2s argument.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
152
Passage 4
9te'e argues> EWe kno6 that not all eole are 6ise %ecause 6isdom reBuires an
education and not all eole ha'e an education.F 8rittany then challenges> E8ut all
eole do ha'e an education %ecause e'eryone learns things and learning is eBui'alent
6ith an education.F
&ere an o%4ection is against the %elie( that Eall eole are 6iseF "a conclusion# and another o%4ection is
against the %elie( that Enot all eole ha'e an education>F 6hich is a remise gi'en %y 9te'e.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
15*
(10.& Practice distinguishing bet5een ob/ections against premises and
conclusions.
/his section resents ten assages containing o%4ections to remises and conclusions. Rou can then
determine i( the o%4ections are against remises andSor conclusions and create argument mas to them.
/he ans6ers to these ractice ro%lems 6ill %e ro'ided a(ter6ard.
Problem 1
+ll animals are li'ing organisms. ?o rocks are li'ing organisms. /here(ore> it2s not the case that some
rocks are li'ing organisms.
Problem 2
9ome eole think ghosts e.ist %ecause they can e.lain 'arious une.lained henomena. &o6e'er>
ghosts ro%a%ly don2t e.ist %ecause other e.lanations (or the une.lained henomena are %etter
e.lanations.
Problem 3
We ha'e no e'idence that a teaot re'ol'es around the 9un. I( 6e ha'e no e'idence that a teaot
re'ol'es around the 9un> then the celestial teaot doesn2t e.ist. /here(ore> the celestial teaot doesn2t
e.ist.
Problem 3
9ome eole think dragons e.ist> %ut 6e kno6 dragons don2t e.ist %ecause Aoologists agree that
dragon2s don2t e.ist> and i( Aoologists agree that dragon2s don2t e.ist> then they don2t e.ist.
Problem 4
9ome eole think unicorns e.ist %ecause it makes us (eel good to %elie'e they e.ist. &o6e'er> i( 6e
should %elie'e 6hate'er makes us (eel good> then 6e should %elie'e that a suer hero 6ill catch all the
criminals tomorro6.
Problem 6
;rica thinks 6e should %urn 6ood %ecause it makes us (eel good> %ut =a. thinks 6e shouldn2t %urn
6ood %ecause it causes to.ic air ollution.
Problem 8
Galadriel thinks 6e shouldn2t smoke cigarettes %ecause smoking al6ays makes us unhealthy> %ut
Gandol( argues that smoking doesn2t al6ays make us unhealthy %ecause smoking a single cigarette
150
doesn2t.
Problem 9
@red thinks it2s healthy to drink any amount o( alcohol %ecause it2s not unhealthy to drink a can o( %eer>
%ut Wilma thinks it2s not healthy to drink too much alcohol %ecause medical e.erts all agree that
drinking too much alcohol is unhealthy.
Problem :
8etty argues> EWe should generally %elie'e 6hate'er e.lanation has the most e'idence %ecause
6hate'er 6e can all o%ser'e is likely to %e realK and i( 6hate'er 6e can all o%ser'e is likely to %e real>
then 6e should generally %elie'e 6hate'er e.lanation has the most e'idence.F 8arney relies> EI re4ect
that 6hate'er 6e can all o%ser'e is likely to %e real %ecause a sta(( looks %ent 6hen 6e ut it in 6aterK
and i( a sta(( looks %ent 6hen 6e ut it in 6ater> then 6e should re4ect that 6hat 6e can all o%ser'e is
likely to %e real.F
Problem 1;
Caser argues> EWe should al6ays re4ect e.lanations 6hen much simler e.lanations are a'aila%le
%ecause simlicity is a 'irtueK and i( simlicity is a 'irtue> then 6e should al6ays re4ect e.lanations
6hen much simler e.lanations are a'aila%le.F Wendy relies> EWe should not al6ays re4ect
e.lanations 6hen much simler e.lanations are a'aila%le %ecause 2(airies did it2 is o(ten the simlest
e.lanationK and i( 2(airies did it2 is o(ten the simlest e.lanation> then 6e should not al6ays re4ect
e.lanations 6hen much simler e.lanations are a'aila%le.F
155
Ans$ers
Problem 1
+ll animals are li'ing organisms. ?o rocks are li'ing organisms. /here(ore> it2s not the
case that some rocks are li'ing organisms.
Problem 2
9ome eole think ghosts e.ist %ecause they can e.lain 'arious une.lained
henomena. &o6e'er> ghosts ro%a%ly don2t e.ist %ecause other e.lanations (or the
une.lained henomena are %etter e.lanations.
155
Problem 3
We ha'e no e'idence that a teaot re'ol'es around the 9un. I( 6e ha'e no e'idence that
a teaot re'ol'es around the 9un> then the celestial teaot doesn2t e.ist. /here(ore> the
celestial teaot doesn2t e.ist.
Problem 3
9ome eole think dragons e.ist> %ut 6e kno6 dragons don2t e.ist %ecause Aoologists
agree that dragon2s don2t e.ist> and i( Aoologists agree that dragon2s don2t e.ist> then they
don2t e.ist.
15!
Problem 4
9ome eole think unicorns e.ist %ecause it makes us (eel good to %elie'e they e.ist.
&o6e'er> i( 6e should %elie'e 6hate'er makes us (eel good> then 6e should %elie'e that
a suer hero 6ill catch all the criminals tomorro6.
15)
Problem 6
;rica thinks 6e should %urn 6ood %ecause it makes us (eel good> %ut =a. thinks 6e
shouldn2t %urn 6ood %ecause it causes to.ic air ollution.
15-
Problem 8
Galadriel thinks 6e shouldn2t smoke cigarettes %ecause smoking al6ays makes us
unhealthy> %ut Gandol( argues that smoking doesn2t al6ays make us unhealthy %ecause
smoking a single cigarette doesn2t.
150
Problem 9
@red thinks it2s healthy to drink any amount o( alcohol %ecause it2s not unhealthy to drink
a can o( %eer> %ut Wilma thinks it2s not healthy to drink too much alcohol %ecause
medical e.erts all agree that drinking too much alcohol is unhealthy.
151
Problem :
8etty argues> EWe should generally %elie'e 6hate'er e.lanation has the most e'idence
%ecause 6hate'er 6e can all o%ser'e is likely to %e realK and i( 6hate'er 6e can all
o%ser'e is likely to %e real> then 6e should generally %elie'e 6hate'er e.lanation has
the most e'idence.F 8arney relies> EI re4ect that 6hate'er 6e can all o%ser'e is likely to
%e real %ecause a sta(( looks %ent 6hen 6e ut it in 6aterK and i( a sta(( looks %ent 6hen
6e ut it in 6ater> then 6e should re4ect that 6hat 6e can all o%ser'e is likely to %e
real.F
152
Problem 1;
Caser argues> EWe should al6ays re4ect e.lanations 6hen much simler e.lanations
are a'aila%le %ecause simlicity is a 'irtueK and i( simlicity is a 'irtue> then 6e should
al6ays re4ect e.lanations 6hen much simler e.lanations are a'aila%le.F Wendy
relies> EWe should not al6ays re4ect e.lanations 6hen much simler e.lanations are
a'aila%le %ecause 2(airies did it2 is o(ten the simlest e.lanationK and i( 2(airies did it2 is
o(ten the simlest e.lanation> then 6e should not al6ays re4ect e.lanations 6hen
much simler e.lanations are a'aila%le.
15*
Part I7: 7alidit%
<alidity concerns the logical (orm o( arguments. I( an argument has a 'alid logical (orm and true
remises> then the conclusion must also %e true. @or e.amle> EWe can see that the ;arth is round. I( 6e
can see that the ;arth is round> then it2s ro%a%ly round. /here(ore> the ;arth is ro%a%ly round.F /his
section includes a discussion concerning the (ollo6ing:
1. $ogical 'alidity.
2. Why 'alidity is imortant.
*. Why 'alidity is not su((icient (or good arguments.
0. $ogical soundness.
5. Countere.amles against in'alid arguments.
5. &o6 6e can use countere.amles to gi'e o%4ections against in'alid arguments.
150
Chapter 1': 3ntroduction to logical #alidity
$ogical 'alidity concerns the (orm o( an argument> and logically 'alid arguments ha'e remises that
are su((iciently rele'ant to imly the conclusionDi( the remises are all true> then the conclusion must
%e true. It2s imossi%le (or a 'alid argument to ha'e true remises and a (alse conclusion at the same
time. +rguments must %e 'alid to gi'e us an entirely su((icient reason to accet a conclusion.
Example o" a *alid argument
Consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. I( 9ocrates is a human> then 9ocrates is a mammal.
2. 9ocrates is a human.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a mammal.
/he argument ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument is 'alid %ecause the argument (orm assures us that the argument can2t ha'e true remises
and a (alse conclusion at the same time. /he argument (orm is the (ollo6ing:
1. I( +> then 8.
2. +.
*. /here(ore> 8.
155
+n argument ma o( this argument (orm is the (ollo6ing:
We can then use this argument (orm to create other 'alid arguments. @or e.amle> EI( all retiles are
animals> then all liAards are animals. +ll retiles are animals. /here(ore> all liAards are animals.F
Example o" an in*alid argument
/o emhasiAe the imortance o( logical 'alidity> consider that in'alid arguments can ha'e true
conclusions> %ut the remises don2t gi'e us a su((icient reason to accet the conclusion. @or e.amle>
consider the (ollo6ing in'alid argument:
1. ;ither 9ocrates is a mature adult andSor he lacks the a%ility to argue.
2. 9ocrates is a mature adult.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates does not lack the a%ility to argue.
/he argument ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
155
/he ro%lem here is that the remises do not reBuire us to agree 6ith the conclusion> e'en i( they are
%oth true. It doesn2t matter that the conclusion is true. We can o%4ect to the argument (orm rather than
the conclusion. /he argument (orm is E+ andSor 8K +K there(ore> notC8.F
/his in'alid argument (orm can %e illustrated using the (ollo6ing argument ma:
/his argument (orm does not gi'e us a su((icient reason to accet the conclusion %ecause the remises
can %e true and the conclusion can %e (alse at the same time. +n e.amle o( another argument that uses
this argument (orm %ut has true remises and a (alse conclusion is Eeither 9ocrates is a man andSor he is
mortalK 9ocrates is a manK there(ore> he isn2t mortal.F It is true that E9ocrates is a man andSor he is
15!
mortal>F it2s true that E9ocrates is a man>F %ut it2s (alse that E9ocrates isn2t mortal.F Pro'ing arguments
to %e in'alid %y gi'ing another argument 6ith the same (orm> true remises> and a (alse conclusion is
kno6n as gi'ing a countereample.
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
15)
15-
(14.1 !ogical soundness
+rguments are logically sound 6hen they are logically 'alid and ha'e true remises. I( an argument is
intuiti'ely reasona%le and logically sound> then there2s a good chance it2s a good argument. I( 6e kno6
the remises o( a 'alid argument are true> then 6e kno6 the conclusion is also true. ;'en so> there are
t6o main tyes o( oorly reasoned sound arguments:
1. 9ound arguments can %e circular. @or e.amle> E1ogs are mammals. /here(ore> dogs are
mammals.F
2. 9ound arguments can ha'e irrele'ant e.traneous remises. @or e.amle> EI( dogs are mammals>
then dogs are animals. 1ogs are mammals. /he sky is %lue. /here(ore> dogs are animals.F
<alid arguments can also (all 'ictim to these and other shortcomings. /he ne.t section 6ill discuss
'arious reasons that 'alid arguments can (ail to %e good arguments.
@inally> 6e should kee in mind that 6e don2t al6ays kno6 (or sure 6hen our remises are true. + good
argument must ha'e 4usti(ied remises> and a remise can %e 4usti(ied e'en i( 6e don2t kno6 it2s true (or
a%solute certain. @or e.amle> it is er(ectly reasona%le to use scienti(ically con(irmed conclusions
"such as the conclusion that dogs are mammals#> e'en though scienti(ic conclusions are occasionally
(ound to %e (alse.
1!0
Chapter 1+: 4ot all #alid arguments are good
Mee in mind that not all 'alid arguments are good. /here are si. main reasons that 'alid arguments
can (ail to %e good arguments:
1. <alid arguments can ha'e (alse remises.
2. <alid arguments can ha'e (alse conclusions.
*. <alid arguments can %e circular.
0. <alid arguments can ha'e contradictory remises.
5. <alid arguments can ha'e tautological conclusions.
5. <alid arguments can ha'e irrele'ant e.traneous remises.
/his chater ro'ides a discussion o( each o( these.
(alid arguments can )a*e "alse premises1
@or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. I( 9ocrates is a dog> then 9ocrates is mortal.
2. 9ocrates is a dog.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is mortal.
/he argument ma o( this argument looks like the (ollo6ing:
/he (act that a conclusion is true is not enough to ro'e that an argument is good> as is illustrated here.
Why is it a oor argument, 8ecause the reason (or %elie'ing the conclusion is inadeBuateDit is (alse
that 9ocrates is a dog.
1!1
/he argument ma (or an o%4ection to this argument is the (ollo6ing:
1!2
(alid arguments can )a*e "alse conclusions1
@or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. I( 9ocrates is a dog> then 9ocrates has a tail.
2. 9ocrates is a dog.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates has a tail.
/his argument is illustrated in the (ollo6ing argument ma:
Why isn2t this a good argument, 8ecause it has a (alse remise and conclusion. "9ocrates is not a dog
and he doesn2t ha'e a tail.#
1!*
+n o%4ection to this argument is illustrated %y the (ollo6ing argument ma:
(alid arguments can be circular1
@or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. +ll men are mortal.
2. 9ocrates is a man.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a man.
1!0
/he argument ma o( this argument looks like the (ollo6ing:
/he ro%lem 6ith circular arguments is that they don2t actually ro'e anything. /he conclusion merely
reeats a remise.
+n argument ma o( t6o o%4ections to this argument is the (ollo6ing:
1!5
(alid arguments can )a*e contradictory premises1
Contradictions are roositions that reBuire us to %elie'e that something is true and (alse at the same
time. @or e.amle> E/here are la6s o( nature and there are no la6s o( natureF is a contradiction. /he
logical (orm o( contradictions is E+ and notC+.F I( there are any contradictions in the remises o( an
argument> then it2s 'alid %ecause such an argument couldn2t ha'e true remises and a (alse conclusion
at the same time. In'alid arguments ha'e a logical (orm that can %e used 6ith true remises and (alse
conclusions at the same time> and arguments 6ith contradictory remises can ne'er (it this descrition.
I( t6o remises (orm a contradiction> then at least one remise must %e (alse. I( a remise (orms a
contradiction> then the remise is (alse.
@or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. Peole don2t e.ist.
2. +t least one erson e.ists.
*. /here(ore> (orty t6o gods e.ist.
/his argument can %e illustrated 6ith the (ollo6ing argument ma:
+ ma4or ro%lem 6ith this argument "and all arguments 6ith contradictory remises# is 6e kno6 it2s
imossi%le (or %oth remises to %e true %ecause contradictions are imossi%le> and these remises
contradict each other. "In this case it2s (alse that eole don2t e.ist.#
1!5
+n o%4ection to this argument can %e illustrated %y the (ollo6ing argument ma:
1!!
(alid arguments can )a*e tautological conclusions1
/autologies are roositions that can2t ossi%ly %e (alse %ecause o( the logical (orm. @or e.amle>
E9ocrates is a man or 9ocrates is not a manF is a tautology %ecause the logical (orm is E+ or notC+.F +ll
roositions 6ith this (orm are true. +ll arguments 6ith tautological conclusions are 'alid %ecause it2s
imossi%le (or the remises to %e true and the conclusion to %e (alse at the same time.
@or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. ?othing e.ists.
2. +ll statements are (alse.
*. /here(ore> there is li(e on =ars or there is no li(e on =ars.
+n argument ma o( this argument is the (ollo6ing:
/he ro%lem 6ith arguments that ha'e tautological conclusions is that the remises are irrele'ant to the
conclusions. /he remises listed here ha'e nothing to do 6ith the conclusion and are e.traneous.
1!)
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to this argument is the (ollo6ing:
1!-
(alid arguments can )a*e irrele*ant extraneous premises1
@or e.amle> consider the (ollo6ing 'alid argument:
1. +ll men are mortal.
2. 9ocrates is a man.
*. +ll dogs are mortal.
0. /here(ore> 9ocrates is mortal.
/his argument can %e illustrated %y the (ollo6ing argument ma:
/his argument has an e.tra irrele'ant remise that is not needed (or us to reach the conclusion> i.e. the
remise that states that all dogs are mortal.
1)0
We can illustrate an o%4ection to the a%o'e 'alid argument 6ith an e.traneous remise 6ith the
(ollo6ing argument ma:
(18.1 6(amples of distinguishing bet5een good and bad $alid arguments
9i. tyes o( %ad 'alid arguments 6ere discussed in the re'ious section. /his section resents se'en
assages that contain 'alid arguments and discusses ho6 6e can identi(y 6hich o( them are %ad
arguments. 9i. o( the assages contain 'alid arguments that (ail to %e good arguments %ecause they
e.emli(y the si. tyes o( %ad 'alid arguments that 6ere discussed earlier. 3ne o( the assages
contains a good 'alid argument.
1)1
)e passages-
Passage 1
I( all %irds are 6armC%looded> then s6ans are 6armC%looded. Cro6s are 6armC%looded.
+ll %irds are 6armC%looded. /here(ore> s6ans are 6armC%looded.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
In this case ECro6s are 6armC%loodedF is an e.traneous remise %ecause 6e could remo'e it (rom the
argument 6ithout any loss.
1)2
Passage 2
I( the President o( the Lnited 9tates is a dog> then the President o( the Lnited 9tates is a
mammal. /he President o( the Lnited 9tates is a dog. /here(ore> the President o( the
Lnited 9tates is a mammal.
+n argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
In this case the argument contains the (ollo6ing (alse remiseDE/he President o( the Lnited 9tates is a
dog.F
1)*
Passage 3
9ocrates is a man. 9ocrates is mortal. /here(ore> 9ocrates is either a hilosoher or he
isn2t a hilosoher.
+n argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
In this case the conclusion is a tautology. It2s automatically true that E9ocrates is either a hilosoher or
he isn2t a hilosoherF %ecause it has the (orm E+ or notC+.F
1)0
Passage 3
I( all dogs are retiles> then all dogs are coldC%looded. +ll dogs are retiles. /here(ore>
all dogs are coldC%looded.
+n argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument contains a (alse remise "Eall dogs are retilesF# and a (alse conclusion "Eall dogs are
coldC%loodedF#.
1)5
Passage 4
/here 6as li(e on =ars. /here 6as ne'er li(e on =ars. /here(ore> the sky is %lue.
+n argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument contains a (alse remise> %ut 6e don2t kno6 6hich remise is (alse. We kno6 one o( the
remises are (alse %ecause they (orm a contradiction and ha'e the (orm E+ and notC+.F
1)5
Passage 6
I( all 6hales are mammals> then all 6hales %reathe air. +ll 6hales are mammals.
/here(ore> all 6hales %reathe air.
+n argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
/his is a good 'alid argument. /his assage does not e.emli(y any o( the si. %ad tyes o( 'alid
arguments.
1)!
Passage 8
+ll sharks are (ish. I( all sharks are (ish> then all sharks ha'e gills. /here(ore> all sharks
are (ish.
+n argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument is a circular argument %ecause a remise Eall sharks are (ishF is identical to the
conclusion> and it contains an irrele'ant e.traneous remise "i.e. i( all sharks are (ish> then all sharks
ha'e gills#.
(18." Practice identif%ing bad $alid arguments
/his section 6ill resent ten assages that contain 'alid arguments> and some o( the assages contain
one or more o( the si. stated tyes o( %ad 'alid arguments. +ny o( the assages %elo6 that don2t
e.emli(y any o( the a%o'e tyes o( %ad 'alid arguments 6ill %e a Egood argument.F Rou can create
argument mas (or each assage. Rou can then identi(y 6hich o( the assages %elo6 contain good
arguments or 6hich o( the si. tyes o( %ad 'alid arguments are e.emli(ied %y them. /he ans6ers 6ill
%e ro'ided in a searate section.
Practice problems
Problem 1
/he President o( the Lnited 9tates is a (ish. +ll (ish are coldC%looded. /here(ore> the President o( the
Lnited 9tates is coldC%looded.
1))
Problem 2
+ll (ish are animals. 9harks are (ish. /here(ore> sharks are animals.
Problem 3
?o 6hales are mammals. +ll cats are mammals. /here(ore> no 6hales are cats.
Problem 3
I( all liAards are retiles> then all liAards are animals. I( all liAards are animals> then all liAards are li'ing
organisms. I( all liAards are animals> then all liAards ha'e 1?+. /here(ore> i( all liAards are animals> all
liAards are li'ing organisms.
Problem 4
=any eole do morally 6rong actions. /here(ore> many eole do immoral actions.
Problem 6
9ocrates is a man and 9ocrates is not a man. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a mortal.
Problem 8
9ocrates is a man. I( 9ocrates is a man> then he2s a li'ing organism. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a li'ing
organism.
Problem 9
?o al%ino cro6s are %lack. 9ome cro6s are al%ino cro6s. /here(ore> not all cro6s are %lack.
Problem :
?ot all s6ans are 6hite. /here(ore> all s6ans are %lack or not all s6ans are %lack.
Problem 1;
;ither all s6ans are li'ing organisms or they2re all %irds. It2s (alse that all s6ans are %irds. /here(ore> all
s6ans are li'ing organisms.
1)-
Ans$ers
Problem 1
/he President o( the Lnited 9tates is a (ish. +ll (ish are coldC%looded. /here(ore> the
President o( the Lnited 9tates is coldC%looded.
/he remise Ethe President o( the Lnited 9tates is a (ishF is (alse> and the conclusion Ethe President o(
the Lnited 9tates is coldC%loodedF is (alse.
Problem 2
+ll (ish are animals. 9harks are (ish. /here(ore> sharks are animals.
/his is a good argument.
1-0
Problem 3
?o 6hales are mammals. +ll cats are mammals. /here(ore> no 6hales are cats.
/he remise Eno 6hales are mammalsF is (alse.
Problem 3
I( all liAards are retiles> then all liAards are animals. I( all liAards are animals> then all
liAards are li'ing organisms. I( all liAards are animals> then all liAards ha'e 1?+.
/here(ore> i( all liAards are animals> all liAards are li'ing organisms.
/his is a circular argument. /he remise EI( all liAards are animals> then all liAards are li'ing
organismsF is the same as the conclusion. /he other t6o remises are e.traneous.
1-1
Problem 4
=any eole do morally 6rong actions. /here(ore> many eole do immoral actions.
/his is a circular argument. E=orally 6rongF and EimmoralF mean the same thing. /he remise says
the same thing as the conclusion.
Problem 6
9ocrates is a man and 9ocrates is not a man. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a mortal.
/he remises E9ocrates is a manF and E9ocrates is not a manF (orms a contradiction %ecause it has the
(orm E+ and notC+.F It is imossi%le (or %oth remises to %e true at the same time. In this case it2s (alse
1-2
that E9ocrates is not a man.F
Problem 8
9ocrates is a man. I( 9ocrates is a man> then he2s a li'ing organism. /here(ore> 9ocrates
is a li'ing organism.
/his is a good argument.
Problem 9
?o al%ino cro6s are %lack. 9ome cro6s are al%ino cro6s. /here(ore> not all cro6s are
%lack.
/his is a good argument.
1-*
Problem :
?ot all s6ans are 6hite. /here(ore> all s6ans are %lack or not all s6ans are %lack.
/he conclusion Eall s6ans are %lack or not all s6ans are %lackF is a tautology %ecause it has the (orm
E+ or notC+.F
Problem 1;
;ither all s6ans are li'ing organisms or they2re all %irds. It2s (alse that all s6ans are %irds.
/here(ore> all s6ans are li'ing organisms.
/he remise the second remise "Eit2s (alse that all s6ans are %irdsF# is (alse.
1-0
Chapter 1.: Countere-amples to in#alid arguments
Countere.amles o( in'alid arguments ro'e that they2re in'alidDthat arguments using the same (orm
can ha'e true remises and (alse conclusions at the same time. Countere.amles can hel us %etter
areciate and understand 'alid arguments %y %etter understanding 6hy in'alid arguments are
insu((icient to gi'e us a reason to agree 6ith the conclusion. /his section resents a discussion
concerning the (ollo6ing:
1. What countere.amles are.
2. &o6 to create countere.amles.
*. &o6 to create o%4ections to in'alid arguments using countere.amles.
0. ;.amles o( creating countere.amles and o%4ections to in'alid arguments.
(19.1 'hat are countere(amples to in$alid arguments)
Countere.amles are arguments that use the identical argument (orm o( an in'alid argument 6ith true
remises and a (alse conclusion. <alid arguments can2t ossi%ly ha'e all true remises and a (alse
conclusion at the same time> so countere.amles ro'e the argument (orm to %e in'alid.
+n e.amle o( an in'alid argument is the (ollo6ingDEI( 9ocrates is a man> then he is mortal. 9ocrates
is a mortal. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a man.F /he remises and conclusion are all true> %ut the argument
(orm is in'alid. /he (act that these remises are true does not gi'e us a su((icient reason to agree 6ith
the conclusion.
/he argument (orm o( the a%o'e in'alid argument is the (ollo6ingDEI( +> then 8. 8. /here(ore> +.F
+ countere.amle to this argument is the (ollo6ingDEI( 9ocrates is a dog> then he is a mortal. 9ocrates
is mortal. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a dog.F /he remises are %oth true> %ut the conclusion is (alse. /his
makes it clear that the argument (orm is in'alid %ecause it2s ossi%le (or an argument to ha'e the same
(orm> true remises> and a (alse conclusion at the same time.
We generally shouldn2t gi'e in'alid arguments %ecause the remises don2t gi'e us a su((icient reason to
agree 6ith the conclusion> and it is o(ten imortant that remises o( our arguments gi'e us a su((icient
reason to agree 6ith the conclusion.
(19." #o5 to create countere(amples
Creating countere.amles reBuire us to gi'e a ne6 argument using the same argument (orm as an
in'alid argument 6ith true remises and a (alse conclusion. It is easier to make countere.amles 6hen
"a# 6e kno6 ho6 to (ind the (orm o( an argument and "%# 6e kno6 ho6 to create true and (alse
statements.
1-5
<o$ to "ind t)e "orm o" an argument
I 6ill discuss ho6 to (ind the (orm o( an argument in propositional logicD(ormal logic rimarily
concerned 6ith roositions. @irst> remo'e the content o( the argument 6ithout remo'ing the 6ords
2not>2 2and>2 2or>2 2i(Sthen>2 and 2i( and only i(>2 and relacing the content 6ith 'aria%les "+> 8> C> etc.#.
;.amles:
1. It2s not the case that all rocks are animals. "?otC+.#
2. 1ogs are mammals and they2re animals. "+ and 8.#
*. 9ocrates is a man or he is a 6oman. "+ or 8.#
0. I( ;llen is the President o( the Lnited 9tates> then she2s a erson. "I( +> then 8.#
5. ;llen is an animal i( and only i( ;llen is a creature. "+ i( and only i( 8.#
9econd> use the same 'aria%les 6ithin the same argument. @or e.amle> consider the argument Ei(
9ocrates is a man> then he2s mortalK he2s a mortalK there(ore> he2s a man.F /he (orm o( this argument is
Ei( +> then 8K +K there(ore> 8.F In this case 2+2 stands (or E9ocrates is a man>F and 282 stands (or
E9ocrates is mortal.F We can then relace 6hat 2+2 and 282 stand (or. @or e.amle> 2+2 can %e relaced
6ith E9ocrates is a dogF and 282 can %e relaced 6ith E9ocrates is mortal.F /he ne6 argument 6e get %y
relacing these 'aria%les isDEI( 9ocrates is a dog> then he2s mortalK 9ocrates is a dogK there(ore>
9ocrates is mortal.F
<o$ to create true and "alse statements
We need to make sure that our countere.amles ha'e true remises and a (alse conclusionDand it
should %e o%'ious to e'eryone that the remises are true and the conclusion is (alse. It can %e hel(ul to
realiAe that the (orm o( the statement has a lot to do 6ith the truthC'alue o( the statement:
1. Bot-A Q ?otC+ is true 6hene'er + is (alse. ?otC+ means E+ is (alse.F
2. A and C Q 8oth + and 8 must %e true. I( either or %oth are (alse> then the 6hole statement is
(alse.
*. A or C Q Generally> E+ or 8F is true as long as one 'aria%le is true. I( %oth 'aria%les are (alse>
then the statement is (alse.
0. I" A2 t)en C Q Generally> Ei( +> then 8F is only (alse 6hene'er + is true and 8 is (alse at the
same time.
5. A i" and only i" C Q + and 8 ha'e the same truthC'alue. /hey can %oth %e true or %oth %e (alse.
;.amles:
1. EIt2s not the case that rocks are animalsF is true %ut Eit2s not the case that dogs are animalsF is
(alse.
2. E1ogs are mammals and they2re animalsF is true> %ut Edogs are mammals and they2re %irdsF is
(alse.
*. E9ocrates is a man or he2s a 6omanF is true> %ut E9ocrates is a dog or he2s a catF is (alse.
0. I( ;llen is the President o( the Lnited 9tates> then she2s a ersonF is true> %ut Ei( the President o(
the Lnited 9tates is a erson> then he or she is a catF is (alse.
1-5
5. EGeorge is an animal i( or only i( George is a creatureF is true> %ut Edogs are mammals i( and
only i( dogs are retilesF is (alse.
(19.& #o5 to create ob/ections using countere(amples
Countere.amles can %e used to o%4ect to arguments. We can o%4ect to an argument (or %eing in'alid
and then use the countere.amle to ro'e it2s in'alid. 9uch o%4ections consist o( a remise that states
that the argument is in'alid> and it is 4usti(ied 6ith the (ollo6ing argument:
1. I( 6e can ha'e an argument 6ith the same (orm that has true remises and a (alse conclusion>
then the argument is logically in'alid.
2. We can ha'e an argument 6ith the same (orm that has true remises and a (alse conclusion.
*. /here(ore> the argument is in'alid.
We can then suort the second remise 6ith t6o more remises:
1. /he (irst remise can state the argument (orm. "/he (orm o( the argument is...#
2. /he second remise can state the countere.amle. "+n argument that uses the same argument
(orm> %ut has true remises and a (alse conclusion is the (ollo6ing...#
+n outline (or argument mas that use a countere.amle is the (ollo6ing:
1-!
1-)
(19.* 6(amples of making countere(amples
/his section 6ill resent three in'alid arguments> e.lain ho6 6e can make countere.amles to them>
and sho6 ho6 the countere.amles can %e used (or o%4ections.
Example 1
Consider the (ollo6ing in'alid argumentDE;ither &yatia is an astronomer andSor a mathematician.
&yatia is an astronomer. /here(ore> &yatia is not a mathematician.F
/he argument (orm is E+ andSor 8K +K there(ore> notC8.F
We can then create a countere.amle using this argument (orm 6ith true remises and a (alse
conclusion. "E+ andSor 8F is true> E+F is true> and EnotC8F is (alse. 9o> E+F and E8F are %oth true.#
E+F can %e E&yatia is a humanF "6hich is true# and E8F can %e E&yatia is a mammalF "6hich is also
true#. In that case the countere.amle is the (ollo6ing:
1. &yatia is a human or a mammal.
2. &yatia is a human.
*. /here(ore> &yatia is not a mammal.
We can no6 use the countere.amle as art o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument. /he argument ma
is the (ollo6ing:
1--
200
Example 2
Consider the (ollo6ing in'alid argumentDEI( &iarchia is a mammal> then she2s a li'ing organism.
9he2s a li'ing organism. /here(ore> she2s a mammal.F
/he argument (orm is Ei( +> then 8K 8K there(ore> +.F
We can then create a countere.amle using this argument (orm 6ith true remises and a (alse
conclusion. "EI( +> then 8F is true> E8F is true> and E+F is (alse. 9o> E+F is (alse and E8F is true.#
E+F can %e E1ogs are retilesF "6hich is (alse# and E8F can %e E1ogs are animalsF "6hich is true#. In
that case the countere.amle is the (ollo6ing:
1. I( dogs are retiles> then dogs are animals.
2. 1ogs are animals.
*. /here(ore> dogs are retiles.
We can no6 use the countere.amle as art o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument. /he argument ma
is the (ollo6ing:
201
202
Example 3
Consider the (ollo6ing in'alid argumentDE9imone de 8eau'oir is a human i( and only i( she is a
=artian. 9imone de 8eau'oir is a human. /here(ore> she isn2t a =artian.
/he argument (orm is E+ i( and only i( 8K +K there(ore> notC8.F
We can then create a countere.amle using this argument (orm 6ith true remises and a (alse
conclusion. "E+ i( and only i( 8F is true> E+F is true> and EnotC8F is (alse. 9o> E+F is true and E8F is
true.#
E+F can %e Esome cats ha'e tailsF "6hich is true# and E8F can %e Esome (elines ha'e tailsF "6hich is
also true#. /he countere.amle 6ould then %e the (ollo6ing:
1. 9ome cats ha'e tails i( and only i( some (elines ha'e tails.
2. 9ome cats ha'e tails.
*. /here(ore> it2s (alse that some (elines ha'e tails.
We can no6 use the countere.amle as art o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument. /he argument ma
is the (ollo6ing:
20*
200
(19.- Practicing making countere(amples
/his section contains ten in'alid arguments. Rou can then create countere.amles and use the
countere.amles to create argument mas o( o%4ections to the in'alid arguments. /he ans6ers 6ill then
%e gi'en a(ter6ard. Mee in mind that there are correct countere.amles that are di((erent (rom the
ones ro'ided here.
Problem 1
9ocrates is a mammal. I( 9ocrates is a human> then he is a mammal. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a human.
Problem 2
;ither dogs are mammals andSor dogs are retiles. 1ogs are mammals. /here(ore> dogs are not retiles.
Problem 3
$iAards are li'ing organisms i( and only i( they are mammals. $iAards are li'ing organisms. /here(ore>
liAards are not mammals.
Problem 3
I( o6ls are liAards> then o6ls are animals. 36ls are not liAards. /here(ore> o6ls are animals.
Problem 4
;ither dogs are retiles andSor (ish. 1ogs are not retiles. /here(ore> dogs are not (ish.
Problem 6
I( killing eole is al6ays 6rong> then the death enalty is 6rong. /he death enalty is 6rong.
/here(ore> killing eole is not al6ays 6rong.
Problem 8
I( hurting eole is al6ays 6rong> then unching eole is 6rong. &urting eole is not al6ays 6rong.
/here(ore> unching eole is 6rong.
Problem 9
;ither gi'ing to charity is al6ays right andSor donating (ood is al6ays right. Gi'ing to charity isn2t
al6ays right. /here(ore> donating (ood is not al6ays right.
Problem :
205
;ither eole are made o( atoms andSor they are made o( %ananas. Peole are made o( atoms.
/here(ore> eole are not made o( %ananas.
Problem 1;
/he 9un 6ill rise tomorro6 i( and only i( the ;arth stos sinning. /he ;arth 6ill not sto sinning.
/here(ore> the 9un 6ill rise tomorro6.
Ans$ers
Problem 1
9ocrates is a mammal. I( 9ocrates is a human> then he is a mammal. /here(ore> 9ocrates
is a human.
+ countere.amle is Eo6ls are animalsK i( o6ls are mammals> then they2re animalsK there(ore> they2re
mammals.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
205
20!
Problem 2
;ither dogs are mammals andSor dogs are retiles. 1ogs are mammals. /here(ore> dogs
are not retiles.
+ countere.amle is Eeither dogs are mammals andSor dogs are animalsK dogs are mammalsK there(ore>
dogs are not animals.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
20)
20-
Problem 3
$iAards are li'ing organisms i( and only i( they are mammals. $iAards are li'ing
organisms. /here(ore> liAards are not mammals.
+ countere.amle is EliAards are li'ing organisms i( and only i( they2re creaturesK liAards are li'ing
organismsK there(ore> liAards are not creatures.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
210
211
Problem 3
I( o6ls are liAards> then o6ls are animals. 36ls are not liAards. /here(ore> o6ls are
animals.
+ countere.amle is Ei( o6ls are liAards> then o6ls are retilesK o6ls are not liAardsK there(ore> o6ls are
retiles.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
212
21*
Problem 4
;ither dogs are retiles andSor (ish. 1ogs are not retiles. /here(ore> dogs are not (ish.
+ countere.amle is Eeither dogs are animals andSor mammalsK they2re not animalsK there(ore> they2re
not animals.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
210
215
Problem 6
I( killing eole is al6ays 6rong> then the death enalty is 6rong. /he death enalty is
6rong. /here(ore> killing eole is not al6ays 6rong.
+ countere.amle is Ei( 6hales are mammals> then they2re animalsK 6hales are animalsK there(ore>
6hales are not mammals.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
215
21!
Problem 8
I( hurting eole is al6ays 6rong> then unching eole is 6rong. &urting eole is not
al6ays 6rong. /here(ore> unching eole is 6rong.
+ countere.amle is Ei( all dogs are liAards> then all dogs are retilesK it is not the case that all dogs are
liAardsK there(ore> all dogs are retiles.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
21)
21-
Problem 9
;ither gi'ing to charity is al6ays right andSor donating (ood is al6ays right. Gi'ing to
charity isn2t al6ays right. /here(ore> donating (ood is not al6ays right.
+ countere.amle is Eeither all dogs are animals andSor all dogs are mammalsK it2s not the case that all
dogs are animalsK there(ore> it2s not the case that all dogs are mammals.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
220
221
Problem :
;ither eole are made o( atoms andSor they are made o( %ananas. Peole are made o(
atoms. /here(ore> eole are not made o( %ananas.
+ countere.amle is Eeither eole are made o( atoms andSor they are made o( moleculesK they2re made
o( atomsK there(ore> they2re not made o( molecules.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
222
22*
Problem 1;
/he 9un 6ill rise tomorro6 i( and only i( the ;arth stos sinning. /he ;arth 6ill not
sto sinning. /here(ore> the 9un 6ill rise tomorro6.
+ countere.amle is Eoison heals eole i( and only i( it makes eole healthierK oison does not
make eole healthierK there(ore> oison heals eole.F
+n argument ma o( an o%4ection to the in'alid argument is the (ollo6ing:
220
225
Part 7: Informal fallacies
@allacies are errors in reasoning. We o(ten (ind (allacious arguments to %e ersuasi'eDat least until 6e
kno6 6hat2s 6rong 6ith them. ;'en so> (allacious arguments are generally only gi'en 6hen 6e are
thinking oorly or trying to maniulate the minds o( others. /here is much to %e said a%out 6hat is
reBuired o( good arguments> and one such reBuirement is that no (allacies should %e committed.
@ormal (allacies are logically in'alid argument (orms> and in(ormal (allacies are errors o( reasoning that
don2t merely in'ol'e the argument form.
Part < contains a discussion concerning (our categories o( in(ormal (allacies. /he (our categories
include (allacies o( rele'ance> (allacies o( 6eak induction> (allacies o( resumtion> and (allacies o(
language. Mee in mind that there are> at minimum> hundreds o( (allacies> so there are many more than
the t6el'e that are discussed here. +lso kee in mind that 'arious tyes o( (allacies can o'erla and are
not mutually e.clusi'e.
225
Chapter 2/: 5allacies o* rele#ance
Good arguments need rele'ant suorting e'idence and good arguments 6ithin a de%ate must generally
%e rele'ant to certain other arguments 6ithin the de%ate. @allacies o( rele'ance (ail to li'e u to these
rinciles. /his chater 6ill resent three (allacies o( rele'ance:
1. 7ed herring
2. 9tra6 man
*. +eal to authority
(":.1 ;ed herring
/he red herring (allacy is committed %y saying something irrele'ant to distract eole or change the
su%4ect. Generally 6hat is said (ocuses the attention on the oonent or the oonent2s argument in
order to a'oid one2s o6n (ailings "or the (ailings o( one2s o6n argument#. /he most common (orm o(
red herring is meant to discredit the oonent %y discussing the (ailings o( the oonent> %ut a red
herring can also %e used to discuss the moral sueriority o( onesel( or any num%er o( other things.
7ed herrings do not necessarily lead to an illegitimate conclusion. Instead> 6e o(ten to 6ant to a'oid
them (or %eing unproductive 6ithin a de%ate.
+n e.amle o( a red herring (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he President 6ants to ha'e social rograms to hel the oor.
2. &o6e'er> totalitarian communists 6anted to ha'e social rograms to hel the oor.
*. /otalitarian communists> like 9talin> killed millions o( innocent eole.
0. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t ha'e social rograms (or the oor.
22!
/he argument ma (or this e.amle is the (ollo6ing:
In the a%o'e argument the mere association o( totalitarian communists 6ith social rograms (or the
oor is meant to discredit such rograms. &o6e'er> it is Buite ossi%le that e'il totalitarian communists
did some things right. Consider the 'ie6 that e'erything totalitarian communists do is 6rong. In that
case> 6e shouldn2t eat (ood %ecause so 9talin ate (ood.
In order to gi'e an o%4ection to a red herring> 6e can oint out that the argument is irrele'ant to the
de%ate and e.lain 6hy the argument is irrele'ant. @or e.amle> 6e can e.licitly o%4ect to the a%o'e
(allacious argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he remises are irrele'ant to the conclusion unless e'erything totalitarian communists do is
6rong.
2. ?ot e'erything totalitarian communists do is 6rong.
*. /here(ore> the remises are irrele'ant to the conclusion.
22)
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
22-
(":." 2tra5 man
We should %e charita%le to those 6e disagree 6ith and try to understand 6hy they disagree 6ith us. /he
stra6 man (allacy is committed 6hen someone is uncharita%le to the argument o( others. /he stra6
man (allacy is committed %y mischaracteriAing the %elie(s or arguments o( others in a 6ay that makes
them seem less reasona%le than they really are and then gi'ing an o%4ection to the mischaracteriAation.
&o6e'er> 6e can2t discredit the actual arguments gi'en %y others i( 6e resent the arguments as less
reasona%le than they really are.
+n e.amle o( a stra6 man (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. 9cientists %elie'e in e'olution %ecause they re4ect God and need an atheistic e.lanation (or
6here comle. organisms came (rom.
2. 3nce 6e realiAe God e.ists> 6e don2t need an atheistic e.lanation (or 6here comle.
organisms came (rom.
*. /here(ore> theists should re4ect e'olution.
/he ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument is an e.treme tye o( stra6 man argument %ecause it ignores all the e'idence (or
e'olution actually gi'en %y %iologists. Instead> it merely gi'es a sychological moti'ation %ehind 6hy
scientists might 6ant to 4usti(y the theory o( e'olution. /he reason to %elie'e in e'olution resented
here "i.e. the need (or an atheistic e.lanation# is not a good argument (or e'olution> and there are much
%etter arguments a'aila%le.
2*0
In order to gi'e an e.licit o%4ection to a stra6 man (allacy> 6e should oint out that the %est argument
(or a osition is %eing ignored or distorted> and the oonent has relaced the %est argument 6ith
something less reasona%le. @or e.amle> 6e can e.licitly o%4ect to the a%o'e (allacious argument in
the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument descri%es a reason to %elie'e in e'olution as re4ecting God and needing an
atheistic e.lanation (or 6here comle. organisms came (rom.
2. &o6e'er> the a%o'e argument states a signi(icantly 6orse argument (or e'olution than others
that are a'aila%le. "7e4ecting God is not a good reason to %elie'e in e'olution and there is
hysical e'idence o( e'olution.#
*. I( the a%o'e argument states a signi(icantly 6orse argument (or e'olution than are a'aila%le>
then the a%o'e argument does not re(ute the %est reasons to %elie'e in e'olution.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument does not re(ute the %est reasons to %elie'e in e'olution.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2*1
2*2
(":.& Appeal to authorit%
+n aeal to authority argument can %e a legitimate (orm o( 4usti(ication 6hen 6e re(er to the
unanimous oinions o( e.erts 6ho ha'e 4usti(ied their %elie(s though the aroriate research. /he
Eaeal to authority (allacyF is committed 6hen 6e re(er to the oinions o( others 6ho are not Buali(ied
in the rele'ant sense %ecause the authority (igure is not the right kind o( e.ert or the e.ert2s oinion is
contro'ersial among the other e.erts in the (ield.
+n e.amle o( an argument that commits the aeal to authority (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. +ristotle 6as one o( the greatest hilosohers o( all time 6ho disco'ered (ormal logic.
2. +ristotle thought the 9un re'ol'es around the ;arth.
*. /here(ore> the 9un re'ol'es around the ;arth.
/he ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
+lthough +ristotle 6as a great hilosoher> astronomers no6 unanimously agree that the 9un does not
re'ol'e around the ;arth.
We can e.licitly o%4ect to an argument that uses a (allacious aeal to authority %y ointing out 6hy
it2s (allaciousDeither the authority is not the aroriate kind o( e.ert or the e.erts do not
unanimously agree 6ith the stated e.ert oinion. @or e.amle> 6e can gi'e the (ollo6ing o%4ection to
the (allacious argument a%o'e:
1. /he a%o'e aeal to authority is (allacious unless +ristotle is an e.ert astronomer and his
astronomical oinion is uncontro'ersial among the e.erts.
2. &o6e'er> +ristotle2s astronomical oinion is no6 unanimously re4ected %y the rele'ant e.erts.
2**
*. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument is (allacious.
/he ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2*0
Chapter 21: 5allacies o* "eak induction
@allacies o( 6eak induction in'ol'e insu((icient and misused e'idence. Good arguments o(ten reBuire
that 6e use e'idence. ;mirical e'idence or Eo%ser'ationF is one o( the strongest (orms o( e'idence
that 6e can demonstrate to other eole. ?atural science reBuires e'idence o( this kind> and natural
science reBuires that 6e generaliAe (rom this e'idence. @or e.amle> 6e kno6 Ethe 9un 6ill rise
tomorro6 %ecause it has al6ays risen throughout human history and 6e ha'e no reason to think the
;arth 6ill sto sinning.F
What 6e call EinductionF or Einducti'e reasoningF is the use o( generaliAation to redict 6hat is likely
true %ased on 6hat 6as true in the ast> or to generaliAe 6hat is likely true %ased on 'arious other
atterns. @or e.amle> 6e can generaliAe that Eall %irds ro%a%ly ha'e 6arm %lood and hollo6 %ones
%ecause all %irds 6e kno6 a%out so (ar ha'e 6arm %lood and hollo6 %ones.F
Inducti'e reasoning is o(ten contrasted 6ith Ededucti'e reasoning.F 1educti'e reasoning is meant to
guarantee that the conclusion is true as long as 6e assume the remises are true. Good deducti'e
arguments are al6ays Elogically 'alidF "%ut not all logically 'alid arguments are good#. &o6e'er>
inducti'e reasoning is only meant to ha'e ro%a%le conclusions as long as 6e assume the remises are
true. @or e.amle> it is 'ery likely that Eall %irds ha'e 6arm %lood and hollo6 %onesF %ased on the (act
that Eall %irds 6e kno6 a%out so (ar ha'e 6arm %lood and hollo6 %ones.F /his is a er(ectly good
argument. ;'en so> it is ossi%le that the conclusion is (alse. Perhas some day 6e 6ill (ind a %ird
6ithout cold %lood or hollo6 %ones.
/his chater 6ill resent three (allacies o( 6eak induction:
1. &asty generaliAation
2. +eal to ignorance
*. 9liery sloe
("1.1 #ast% generali<ation
/he hasty generaliAation is committed %y arguments 6hen 6e use them to dra6 conclusions %ased on
insu((icient e'idence. @or e.amle> a child 6ho sees %lack cro6s might (alsely assume that all %irds are
%lack. 7acism is o(ten also %ased on a hasty generaliAation %y assuming that e'eryone in a racial grou
are like the (e6 E%ad alesF o( the grou. &asty generaliAations remind us that 6e should ha'e modest
conclusions that are %etter suorted %y the incomlete e'idence that2s o(ten a'aila%le. ;.traordinary
claims reBuire e.traordinary e'idenceDthe more unusual or counterintuiti'e a claim is> the more
e'idence 6e need to rationally ersuade eole that it2s true.
3ne oular tye o( hasty generaliAation is anecdotal e'idence "i.e. testimonial e'idence#. /he (act that
something seems to 6ork (or one erson does not imly that it really does 6ork (or that erson or
anyone else. @or e.amle> a drug might seem to cure a disease (or a erson> %ut that erson might get
healthier e'en i( she doesn2t take the drug.
2*5
+n e.amle o( an argument that uses a hasty generaliAation is the (ollo6ing:
1. +ll li(e on ;arth is car%onC%ased.
2. /here(ore> all li(e in the uni'erse is car%onC%ased.
/he argument ma (or this hasty generaliAation is the (ollo6ing:
/his is a hasty generaliAation %ecause 6hat2s true a%out li(e on ;arth might not %e true o( li(e else6here
in the uni'erse. 9ome scientists seculate that there could %e siliconC%ased li(e (orms else6here in the
uni'erse "6hich is a otential alternati'e to car%onC%ased li(e (orms#.
In order to o%4ect to a hasty generaliAation> 6e can make it clear that 6e can agree 6ith the e'idence
and o%ser'ations 6ithout agreeing 6ith the conclusion. We could also usually oint out that the samle
siAe is insu((icient (or the generaliAation %eing made.
We can e.licitly state an o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument as the (ollo6ing:
1. /he argument a%o'e reBuires that 6e accet that the samle siAe o( all kno6n li(e (orms on the
;arth is large enough to kno6 6hat li(e is like e'ery6here in the uni'erse.
2. &o6e'er> the samle siAe "the ;arth# is too small to kno6 6hat li(e is like e'ery6here in the
6hole uni'erse.
*. I( the ;arth is too small o( a samle siAe to kno6 6hat li(e is like in the uni'erse> then the
remises are insu((icient to kno6 conclusion is true.
0. /here(ore> the remises are insu((icient to kno6 the conclusion is true.
2*5
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2*!
("1." Appeal to ignorance
/he aeal to ignorance (allacy is committed 6hen someone dra6s a conclusion (rom the (act that 6e
don2t kno6 something. We can2t kno6 6hat2s true or (alse %ased on our ignorance. @or e.amle> some
eole might claim that unicorns ro%a%ly e.ist %ased on the (act that no one can conclusi'ely ro'e
that unicorns don2t e.ist.
+ oular (orm o( the aeal to ignorance (allacy is 6hen 6e o%4ect to an argument (or ha'ing an
un4usti(ied remise and re4ect the conclusion as a result. We can2t kno6 a conclusion is un4usti(ied 4ust
%ecause an argument (or that conclusion is un4usti(ied. Perhas there2s another reason 6e should
%elie'e the conclusion is true that hasn2t %een mentioned.
+n e.amle o( an aeal to ignorance (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. Mathy argued that Emari4uana should %e legal %ecause it makes eole hay.F
2. &o6e'er> 6e don2t kno6 that mari4uana makes eole hay.
*. /here(ore> the %elie( that Emari4uana should %e legalF is un4usti(ied.
/he argument ma (or this aeal to ignorance is the (ollo6ing:
2*)
/his argument is (allacious %ecause 6e don2t kno6 that Mathy2s conclusion is un4usti(ied e'en i( her
remise is un4usti(ied. /here might %e reasons that mari4uana should %e legal e'en i( it doesn2t make
eole hay. Perhas mari4uana has medical roerties to hel eole coe 6ith ain.
3ne 6ay to gi'e o%4ections to the aeal to ignorance (allacy is to make it clear that the argument
assumes that not kno6ing something ro'es something 6hen it doesn2t actually ro'e the stated
conclusion.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e e.licitly 6ritten as the (ollo6ing:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that Emari4uana should only %e legal i( 6e kno6 it
makes eole hay.F
2. &o6e'er> there could %e other reasons that mari4uana should %e legal> such as otential medical
roerties.
2*-
*. I( there could %e other reasons that mari4uana should %e legal> then it2s (alse that Emari4uana
should only %e legal i( 6e kno6 it makes eole hay.F
0. /here(ore> it2s (alse that Emari4uana should only %e legal i( 6e kno6 it makes eole hay.F
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
200
201
("1.& 2lipper% slope
+ nonC(allacious sliery sloe argument can ro'e that a state o( a((airs 6ill someho6 cause
incremental changes. /he sliery sloe (allacy is committed %y arguments that reBuire us to assume
that a state o( a((airs 6ill cause 'arious incremental changes 6ithout %eing roerly 4usti(ied.
+n e.amle o( a sliery sloe (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. I( 6e legaliAe sameCse. marriage> then 6e 6ill legaliAe olygamous marriages.
2. I( 6e legaliAe olygamous marriages> then eole 6ill legaliAe marriages %et6een ste sisters
and %rothers.
*. I( 6e legaliAe marriages %et6een ste sisters and %rothers> then 6e 6ill legaliAe marriage
%et6een %rothers and sisters.
0. I( 6e legaliAe marriages %et6een %rothers and sisters> then 6e 6ill legaliAe marriages %et6een
eole and nonhuman animals.
5. It2s 6rong to legaliAe marriages %et6een eole and nonhuman animals.
5. /here(ore> it2s 6rong to legaliAe sameCse. marriage.
/he argument ma (or this sliery sloe argument is the (ollo6ing:
202
/his argument is (allacious %ecause 6e ha'e little to no reason to think any o( these causal relations
e.ist. It is true that many 6ho suort gay marriage say that 6e should legaliAe marriage %et6een
consenting adults> %ut that 6ould not imly that 6e should legaliAe marriage to nonhuman animals.
We can gi'e an o%4ection to the sliery sloe (allacy %y making it clear that 6e ha'e no reason to
agree 6ith at least one o( the remisesDa causal relation is assumed to e.ist that has not %een
su((iciently ro'en to e.ist.
We can e.licitly o%4ect to the a%o'e (allacious argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /hose 6ho suort sameCse. marriage only 6ant to legaliAe marriages %et6een consenting
adults.
2. I( those 6ho suort sameCse. marriage only 6ant to legaliAe marriages %et6een consenting
adults> then the %elie( that Ei( 6e legaliAe marriages %et6een %rothers and sisters> then 6e 6ill
legaliAe marriages %et6een eole and nonhuman animalsF is un4usti(ied.
*. /here(ore> the remise that states Ei( 6e legaliAe marriages %et6een %rothers and sisters> then
6e 6ill legaliAe marriages %et6een eole and nonhuman animalsF is un4usti(ied
20*
/he argument ma o( this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
200
Chapter 22: 5allacies o* presumption
@allacies o( resumtion in'ol'e un6arranted assumtions. /his chater 6ill resent the (ollo6ing (our
(allacies o( resumtion:
1. 8egging the Buestion
2. @alse dilemma
*. +ccident
0. 3neCsidedness
("".1 1egging the =uestion
/he %egging the Buestion (allacy is committed 6hen an argument reBuires us to assume that a
contro'ersial remise is true that 6ould make the conclusion a tri'ial conseBuence. /hese arguments
ro'ide none o( the evidence that 6ould %e reBuired to ro'e the conclusion is true.
+n e.treme (orm o( %egging the Buestion is the Ecircular argument>F 6hich has a remise that contains
the conclusion. E+ll dogs are mammals %ecause all dogs are mammalsF is a circular argument. ?o
evidence is gi'en %y this argument to accet the conclusion desite the (act that it2s logically sound.
+nother e.amle o( %egging the Buestion is the (ollo6ing argument:
1. It2s al6ays 6rong to kill eole.
2. I( it2s al6ays 6rong to kill eole> then it2s al6ays 6rong to kill murderers.
*. /here(ore> it2s al6ays 6rong to kill murderers.
/he argument ma (or this is the (ollo6ing:
205
/he ro%lem 6ith this argument is that the conclusion is a tri'ial conseBuence o( assuming that it2s
al6ays 6rong to kill eole. /he second remise is uncontro'ersial> %ut the (irst remiseDthat it"s
always wrong to kill peopleDshould not %e assumed to %e true.
/o e.licitly o%4ect to arguments that %eg the Buestion> 6e should make it clear that the argument is
circular or (ails to ro'ide e'idence (or a contro'ersial remise.
+n e.licit o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires us to agree that Eit2s al6ays 6rong to kill eole>F %ut it gi'es us
no reason to agree 6ith this contro'ersial remise.
2. I( an argument reBuires us to agree 6ith a contro'ersial remise and it doesn2t gi'e us any
reason to agree 6ith it> then the argument %egs the Buestion.
*. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument %egs the Buestion.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
205
20!
(""." >alse dilemma
+n argument is a (alse dilemma 6hen it reBuires us to assume there are only so many ossi%ilities
6hen e'en more ossi%ilities are lausi%ly a'aila%le. + (alse dilemma can %e logically 'alid> %ut the
argument (ails to gi'e us a good reason to agree 6ith the conclusion %ecause it unreasona%ly reBuires
us to dismiss or ignore certain rele'ant otions.
9ome (alse dilemmas say that there2s only one ossi%ility 6hen more are a'aila%le. @or e.amle>
E1inosaurs are e.tinct. It is imossi%le (or dinosaurs to %e e.tinct unless many 'olcanoes eruted.
/here(ore> many 'olcanoes eruted.F In this case there is at least one other ossi%ilityDthe dinosaurs
could %e e.tinct %ecause a large meteor hit the ;arth.
+nother e.amle o( a (alse dilemma is the (ollo6ing:
1. ;ither matter can %e created 6ithout cause or God created the uni'erse.
2. It is (alse that matter can %e created 6ithout cause.
*. /here(ore> God created the uni'erse.
/he argument ma (or this (alse dilemma is the (ollo6ing:
/his argument is a (alse dilemma %ecause there are lausi%le alternati'es that are le(t out. Perhas the
uni'erse al6ays e.isted. I( so> 6e can2t conclude that God created the uni'erse e'en i( 6e agree that
matter can %e created 6ithout cause. We 6ould ha'e to (irst ro'e that the uni'erse didn2t al6ays e.ist.
When 6e o%4ect to (alse dilemmas> 6e can make it clear that 6e are reBuired to unreasona%ly restrict
our otions 6hen more otions should %e considered.
20)
+n e.amle o( an o%4ection to the a%o'e (alse dilemma is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires that there are only t6o reasona%le ossi%ilitiesDeither "1# matter
can %e created 6ithout cause or "2# God created the uni'erse.
2. &o6e'er> there is at least one other reasona%le ossi%ilityDerhas the uni'erse 6as not
created a(ter all.
*. I( the argument reBuires only t6o reasona%le ossi%ilities> %ut more than t6o reasona%le
ossi%ilities e.ist> then the argument 6ill (ail to gi'e us a su((icient reason to agree 6ith the
conclusion.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument (ails to gi'e us a su((icient reason to agree 6ith the conclusion.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
20-
250
("".& Accident
/he EaccidentF (allacy takes a general rule and alies it in an inaroriate 6ay. General rules tell us
6hat is usually the case rather than al6ays the case. @or e.amle> it2s a general rule that %irds can (ly>
%ut not e'ery kind o( %ird can (ly. It 6ould %e (allacious to assume that ostriches can (ly %ased on the
general rule that %irds can (ly.
+n e.amle o( an argument that uses the accident (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. 50U o( marriages end in di'orce.
2. /here(ore> the President has a 50U chance o( getting a di'orce.
/he argument ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
/his is an accident (allacy %ecause this statistic can2t %e used to make redictions a%out seci(ic eole.
/here are many (actors that determine the likelihood o( getting a di'orce. "We could conclude that a
random erson that 6e kno6 nothing a%out has a 50U o( getting a di'orce only %ecause 6e 6ouldn2t
ha'e enough in(ormation to make a %etter estimate.#
In order to o%4ect to an accident (allacy> 6e can make it clear that a general rule is %eing considered that
does not aly in e'ery case.
251
We can e.licitly state an o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument as (ollo6s:
1. /he argument reBuires the assumtion that Ei( 50U o( marriages end in di'orce> then the
President has a 50U chance o( getting a di'orce.F
2. &o6e'er> there are many (actors that 6e should use 6hen determining the ro%a%ility o(
di'orce rather than 4ust using the a'erage (or all eole.
*. I( there are many (actors that 6e should use 6hen determining the ro%a%ility o( di'orce rather
than 4ust using the a'erage (or all eole> then the assumtion that Ei( 50U o( marriages end in
di'orce> then the President has a 50U chance o( getting a di'orceF is un4usti(ied.
0. /here(ore> the assumtion that Ei( 50U o( marriages end in di'orce> then the President has a
50U chance o( getting a di'orceF is un4usti(ied.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
252
25*
("".* 3ne?sidedness
It is o(ten imortant to resent arguments that account (or the considerations (or and against a
conclusion. 1e%ates are 'ery educational %ecause they resent t6o sides and it2s imortant (or de%aters
to resond to the arguments gi'en %y the oosing side. It2s o(ten a good idea to seek out and consider
the arguments o( those 6ho disagree 6ith us recisely so that "a# 6e don2t unreasona%ly dismiss the
e'idence against our %elie(s> and "%# 6e can correct our %elie(s 6hene'er 6e (ind out they2re
un4usti(ied. 3neCsidedness is 6hat o(ten haens 6hen 6e (ail to take account o( both sides o( an issue.
3neCsidedness is also kno6n as Echerry ickingF or Esuressed e'idence.F When 6e make certain
strong claims> 6e need strong e'idence to ro'e our claim to %e 4usti(ied. + good 4usti(ication must
generally take account o( all the most rele'ant ros and cons concerning an issue. /o neglect to
mention the con(licting e'idence to our conclusion can make it seem more reasona%le than it really is.
9o> 6e should generally make sure that our arguments and discussions are t6oCsided.
Consider someone 6ho claims that (ree seech 4usti(ies making romises o( re6ard (or an
assassination. /hat claim might seem lausi%le until 6e consider that seech used in that 6ay can
'iolate someone else2s right to li(e. 8oth rights should %e considered. /o ignore the right to li(e 6ould
%e oneCsided.
+nother e.amle o( a oneCsided argument can %e (ound in the (ollo6ing assage:
1. 9usan argues that a 6ar 6ith another country 6ould cost a lot o( money and lead to the death o(
many eole.
2. &o6e'er> the L9+ can attack other countries to take their oil.
*. I( the L9+ can attack other countries to take their oil> then it should do so.
0. /here(ore> the L9+ should attack other countries to take their oil.
+n argument ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
250
/his argument is oneCsided %ecause it ignores the reasons 6hy going to 6ar could %e a %ad idea "it
costs money and many eole 6ill die#. 3ne ossi%le ositi'e %ene(it "getting oil# is merely one
consideration in (a'or o( going to 6ar. We should consider all the reasons (or and against going to 6ar
%e(ore 6e conclude 6hether it should haen.
When e.licitly o%4ecting to a oneCsided argument> 6e should make it clear that there is imortant
e'idence against the conclusion that has %een le(t out.
We can e.licitly o%4ect to the a%o'e oneCsided argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he %elie( that Ei( the L9+ can attack other countries to take their oil> then it should do soF is
only true gi'en the assumtion that o%taining oil is a su((icient reason to go to 6ar.
2. I( there are other considerations that might %e o( greater imortance than o%taining oil> then
attaining oil is not a su((icient reason to go to 6ar.
*. /he (inancial cost and lost li'es can %oth %e more imortant than o%taining oil.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
255
255
Chapter 23: 5allacies o* language
@allacies o( language in'ol'e the (act that 6e are o(ten unclear and ine.act in ho6 6e use language.
/his chater 6ill resent the (ollo6ing t6o (allacies o( language:
1. ;Bui'ocation
2. Continuum
("&.1 6=ui$ocation
/he eBui'ocation (allacy is committed 6ith arguments that reBuire us to make un6arranted
assumtions due to the ambiguity o( 6ordsD6ords that ha'e more than one meaning. ;Bui'ocations
can %e committed 6hen 6e (allaciously make use o( multile meanings o( a single 6ord or term. +n
e.amle o( an am%iguous 6ord is 2light.2 It can mean E6eighs little>F Ethe oosite o( darkF or Ea
cluster o( hotons.F
It might %e hel(ul to remind oursel'es a%out the distinction %et6een ambiguity and vagueness*
(mbiguous terms ha'e more than one ossi%le meaning. @or e.amle> the term 2lead2 can re(er to %eing
led or to a metal. + erson can lead others through the 6ilderness or can check (ood (or lead to.icity.
+ague terms ha'e gray areas and it2s o(ten hard to dra6 the line 6hen using 'ague terms. @or e.amle>
2tall2 is 'ague %ecause it2s not clear ho6 long a erson has to %e (rom head to toe in order to %e tall.
/he eBui'ocation (allacy in'ol'es am%iguity rather than 'agueness.
/he statement> Ei( you lo'e %acon> then you should marry it>F eBui'ocates the 6ord 2lo'e.2 9omeone
6ho lo'es %acon likes ho6 it tastes> and someone 6ho lo'es another erson romantically might 6ant to
marry that other erson. 9omeone 6ho lo'es %acon should not marry it.
;Bui'ocations are o(ten con'incing %ecause a single 6ord can ha'e many related and similar meanings.
@or e.amle> the 6ord 2argument2 is o(ten used to re(er to a shouting match or unleasant disagreement>
%ut hilosohers use the 6ord to re(er to the attemt to gi'e us reasons to %elie'e something. Vuite
o(ten eole gi'e reasons to %elie'e something during a shouting match or unleasant disagreement>
and some eole assume that arguments are al6ays unleasant (or that reasonDe'en i( 6e2re 4ust
trying to gi'e eole reasons to %elie'e something.
+n e.amle o( an argument that uses the eBui'ocation (allacy is the (ollo6ing:
1. Marl =ar. endorsed communism.
2. /he 9o'iet Lnion 6as a totalitarian country %ecause it 6as a communist country.
*. I( the 9o'iet Lnion 6as a totalitarian country %ecause it 6as a communist country and Marl
=ar. endorsed communism> then Marl =ar. endorsed totalitarianism.
25!
0. /here(ore> Marl =ar. endorsed totalitarianism.
/he argument ma (or the a%o'e argument is the (ollo6ing:
/he ro%lem here is that the 6ord 2communism2 has di((erent %ut related meanings. In actuality Marl
=ar. did not endorse totalitarianism and the sort o( communism he endorsed 6as little to nothing like
the 9o'iet Lnion2s totalitarian system. &o6e'er> the 6ord 2communism2 does re(er to a totalitarian
system recisely %ecause it is no6 used to re(er to the system used %y the 9o'iet Lnion. /hese 6ords
are related %ecause "a# communism in %oth cases re(ers to an economic system and "%# =ar.2s
hilosohy 6as endorsed %y many o( the 7ussian re'olutionaries.
3nce 6e realiAe that the argument eBui'ocates t6o di((erent kinds o( communism> 6e can rehrase the
argument as the (ollo6ing:
1. Marl =ar. endorsed =ar.istCstyle communism.
2. /he 9o'iet Lnion 6as a totalitarian country %ecause it 6as a 9o'ietCstyle communist country.
*. I( the 9o'iet Lnion 6as a totalitarian country %ecause it 6as a 9o'ietCstyle communist country
and Marl =ar. endorsed =ar.istCstyle communism> then Marl =ar. endorsed totalitarianism.
0. /here(ore> Marl =ar. endorsed totalitarianism.
We can e.licitly o%4ect to an argument that eBui'ocates %y ointing out that the argument reBuires that
6e use t6o di((erent meanings (or an am%iguous term> %ut the argument is logically in'alid once 6e
realiAe that there is an am%iguity in'ol'ed.
25)
We can gi'e the (ollo6ing e.licit o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires that 6e use the 6ord 2communist2 in t6o di((erent 6ays. "/he (irst
de(inition re(ers to an economic system endorsed %y =ar. and the second de(inition re(ers to
the totalitarian system o( the 9o'iet Lnion.#
2. I( the argument reBuires that 6e use the 6ord 2communist2 in t6o di((erent 6ays> then the
argument is logically in'alid.
*. /here(ore> the argument is logically in'alid.
We can 4usti(y the second remise 6ith the (ollo6ing argument:
1. /he argument is logically in'alid i( an argument 6ith the same (orm can ha'e true remises and
a (alse conclusion.
2. I( the argument uses the 6ord 2communist2 in t6o di((erent 6ays> then the argument (orm is E+K
8K i( 8 and C> then 1K there(ore 1.F
*. /he argument Eall dogs are mammalsK all dogs are animalsK i( all dogs are animals and all dogs
are liAards> then all dogs are retilesK there(ore> all dogs are retilesF uses the same (orm> has
true remisesK and has a (alse conclusion.
0. /here(ore> i( the argument reBuires that 6e use the 6ord 2communist2 in t6o di((erent 6ays>
then the argument is logically in'alid.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
25-
250
("&." Continuum
/he continuum (allacy is committed %y arguments that make unreasona%le assumtions %ased on
vagueness "the (act that it can %e hard or imossi%le to Edra6 the lineF#. @or e.amle> someone might
assume that there2s no such thing as immoral actions 4ust %ecause it2s o(ten hard to kno6 6here to dra6
the line %et6een moral and immoral actions. /here are clearCcut e.amles o( immoral and moral acts
e'en though there2s also some hard cases that might %e imossi%le to determine as one or the other. It2s
hard to kno6 ho6 much (orce to use 6hen you ha'e to harm others in sel(Cde(ense> %ut that doesn2t
mean 6e can ne'er harm others e.cessi'ely 6hen 6e need to de(end oursel'es using (orce.
/he continuum (allacy is o(ten a linguistic 'ersion o( the Esliery sloeF (allacy that emhasiAes that
6e can2t dra6 the line %et6een 'arious similar things and concludes that there is no di((erence %et6een
Buite di((erent things. @or e.amle> it2s not clear 6here 6e can dra6 the line regarding ho6 many
otato chis 6e can eat 6ithout harming our health. It2s not clear that eating one> t6o> or three otato
chis is unhealthy> %ut that doesn2t imly that eating one hundred otato chis isn2t unhealthy.
/he (ollo6ing is an e.amle o( an argument that uses the continuum (allacy:
1. /here are thousands o( 'ariations o( eole that e'ol'ed %et6een homo erectus and homo
saiens.
2. We aren2t al6ays a%le to kno6 i( an intermediate grou o( eole is art o( the Ehomo saiensF
secies or the Ehomo erectusF secies.
*. /here(ore> there is no di((erence %et6een homo erectus and homo saiens.
/he argument ma (or this (allacious argument is the (ollo6ing:
251
/his argument discusses e'olutionary changes that e.isted (rom early (orms o( human %eings "homo
erectus# and modern human %eings "homo saiens#> oints out that there 6ill %e many 'ariations
%et6een the t6o> and that 6e 6on2t %e a%le to dra6 the line %et6een one secies and another nearlyC
identical 'ariation. &o6e'er> that does not gi'e us a good reason to re4ect that there are di((erences
%et6een homo erectus and homo saiens.
We can e.licitly o%4ect to arguments that use the continuum (allacy %y making it clear that there are
clearCcut cases desite the (act that there can also %e cases 6here it2s hard to dra6 the line. We might
also 6ant to make it clear that not kno6ing 6here to dra6 the line is not in itsel( a good reason to
suort 6hate'er conclusion is stated.
/he (ollo6ing is an o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument:
1. /he a%o'e argument is only logically 'alid i( 6e assume that Ei( 6e aren2t al6ays a%le to kno6
i( an intermediate grou o( humans is art o( the 2homo saiens2 secies or the 2homo erectus2
secies> then there is no di((erence %et6een homo erectus and homo saiens.F
2. /he assumtion is (alse.
*. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument is either in'alid or it reBuires a (alse assumtion.
We can suort the second remise 6ith the (ollo6ing argument:
1. /he assumtion is only true i( 6e accet that %eing una%le to dra6 a line %et6een 'arious kinds
o( things ro'es that there aren2t multile kinds o( things a(ter all.
2. &o6e'er> 6e can2t al6ays dra6 a line %et6een multile kinds o( things that actually e.ist. "@or
e.amle> eole can2t agree 6hen or i( a%ortion is morally right or 6rong> %ut 6e kno6 some
things are right or 6rong any6ay.#
*. /here(ore> the assumtion is (alse.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
252
25*
Chapter 24: ,-amples o* identi*ying ) o&0ecting to in*ormal *allacies
/his chater resents t6enty arguments and e.lains 6hether or not the arguments contain an in(ormal
(allacyK and> i( so> ho6 6e can o%4ect to it "and create an argument ma (or the o%4ection#. Mee in
mind that the ans6ers gi'en here can legitimately di((er (rom yours %ecause many o( the (allacies
o'erla. Mee an eye out (or the (ollo6ing t6el'e (allacies:
1. 7ed herring
2. 9tra6 man
*. +eal to authority
0. &asty generaliAation
5. +eal to ignorance
5. 9liery sloe
!. 8egging the Buestion
). @alse dilemma
-. +ccident
10. 3neCsidedness
11. ;Bui'ocation
12. Continuum
)e arguments
Argument 1
1. It2s rude to argue 6ith eole "%ecause arguments are hostile disagreements in'ol'ing insults#.
2. /elling children they generally shouldn2t hurt each other E%ecause other eole matter tooF is an
argument.
*. I( telling children they generally shouldn2t hurt each other E%ecause other eole matter tooF is
an argument> then it2s rude.
0. /here(ore> telling children they generally shouldn2t hurt each other E%ecause other eole matter
tooF is rude.
/his argument contains an eBui'ocation (allacy.
/he (irst remise eBuates 2argument2 6ith hostile disagreement> %ut the second remise eBuates
2argument2 6ith rational persuasion. /he third remise re4ects using rational ersuasion 6ith children
%ecause it also re4ects arguments as hostile interactions. &o6e'er> 6e are dealing 6ith t6o di((erent
de(initions o( 2argument2 here and they should not %e con(used. /he argument reBuires this con(usion>
so the eBui'ocation (allacy is committed.
Mee in mind that i( the argument uses t6o de(initions (or the 6ord 2argument>2 then 6e can rehrase
the argument as> EIt2s rude to ha'e hostile disagreements "%ecause they in'ol'e insults#K telling children
they generally shouldn2t hurt each other 2%ecause other eole matter too2 is rational ersuasionK i(
250
telling children they generally shouldn2t hurt each other 2%ecause other eole matter too2 is hostile
disagreement> then it2s rudeK there(ore> telling children they generally shouldn2t hurt each other 2%ecause
other eole matter too2 is rudeF
+n o%4ection to the (allacious argument can %e stated as (ollo6s:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires that 6e use t6o di((erent de(initions (or the 6ord 2argument.2
2. I( the a%o'e argument uses t6o di((erent de(initions (or 2argument>2 then it2s logically in'alid.
*. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument is logically in'alid.
We can 4usti(y the second remise 6ith the (ollo6ing argument:
1. I( the argument uses t6o de(initions (or the 6ord 2argument>2 then the argument (orm is E+K 8K i(
C> then 1K there(ore> 1.F
2. /he argument is logically in'alid i( another argument can ha'e the same (orm> true remises>
and a (alse conclusion.
*. E@o.es are nonhuman animalsK attracti'e eole are (o.esK i( attracti'e eole are (o.es> then
attracti'e eole are nonhuman animalsK there(ore> attracti'e eole are nonhuman animalsF has
the same (orm> true remises> and a (alse conclusion.
/he argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
255
255
Argument 2
1. $inda argues that 6e kno6 it2s morally right to hurt eole 6ho ha'e red hair "4ust %ecause they
ha'e red hair# %ecause eole 6ith red hair are in(erior.
2. $inda clearly does not think eole 6ith red hair deser'e the same resect as all other eole.
*. Peole 6ho ha'e red hair are not in(erior.
0. I( $inda2s remise is (alse> then her argument gi'es us no reason to agree 6ith her conclusion.
5. /here(ore> $inda2s argument does not gi'e us reason to agree 6ith her conclusion.
/here are no in(ormal (allacies in this argument. We might susect that a stra6 man argument is
in'ol'ed %ecause someone else2s argument is mentioned> %ut nothing uncharita%le is said a%out the
argument. /he o%4ection gi'en against $inda2s argument contains no ma4or errors.
Argument 3
1. 9ally argues that it2s usually 6rong to hurt eole %ecause 6e should care a%out other eole.
2. 9ally clearly thinks it2s al6ays 6rong to hurt eole> e'en 6hen it is necessary to hurt others to
rotect oursel'es in sel(Cde(ense.
*. We kno6 that it2s not 6rong to hurt eole 6hen necessary (or sel(Cde(ense.
0. /here(ore> 9ally2s conclusion is (alse.
/his argument contains a stra6 man (allacy.
We should %e alert (or a stra6 man argument 6hen someone else2s argument is mentioned and o%4ected
to. +dditionally> 9ally2s argument is uncharita%ly descri%ed. 9ally did not say she thinks it2s al6ays
6rong to hurt eoleK she merely said it2s usually 6rong. It2s uncharita%le to 9ally2s argument to distort
it in this 6ay. /he o%4ection is irrele'ant %ecause the o%4ection is against a conclusion that 9ally didn2t
e'en argue (or.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated as (ollo6s:
1. 9ally states that it2s usually 6rong to hurt eole.
2. + remise states that 9ally thinks it2s al6ays 6rong to hurt eole.
*. We are not gi'en any reason to think the remise is true.
0. I( 6e are not gi'en any reason to think the remise is true> then it2s un4usti(ied "%ecause it
misreresents 6hat 9ally said#.
5. /here(ore> the remise is un4usti(ied.
/he argument ma (or this o%4ection in the (ollo6ing:
25!
25)
Argument 3
1. Mara says it2s ne'er 6rong to hurt eole.
2. I( it2s ne'er 6rong to hurt eole> then it2s ne'er 6rong to sta% eole 6ith kni'es.
*. I( it2s ne'er 6rong to sta% eole 6ith kni'es> then it2s ne'er 6rong to kill eole 6ith kni'es.
0. /here(ore> Mara2s statement imlies that it2s ne'er 6rong to kill eole 6ith kni'es.
/his argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. We could look (or a sliery sloe (allacy %ecause many
imlications o( a osition are discussed> %ut all the imlications are 4usti(ied. 9ta%%ing eole 6ith
kni'es is one 6ay 6e can hurt them> and killing eole 6ith kni'es could haen 6hen 6e sta% eole
6ith them.
Argument 4
1. I( 6e ha'e gun registration> then 6e 6ill e'entually %an automatic 6eaons.
2. I( 6e %an automatic 6eaons> then 6e 6ill e'entually %an all guns.
*. We shouldn2t %an all guns.
0. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t ha'e gun registration.
/his argument contains a sliery sloe (allacy.
/here are many incremental causal stes listed> and each o( them are art o( a longer causal chain that
leads to something %ad. /hat2s enough to kno6 that a sliery sloe is in'ol'ed> %ut it is ossi%le to
ha'e an argument that in'ol'es a nonC(allacious sliery sloe. ?onetheless> the sliery sloe
in'ol'ed in this argument is (allacious %ecause 6e don2t kno6 that these acts 6ill ha'e the causal
imacts that are mentioned.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. ?o e'idence is mentioned suorting the (irst t6o remises.
2. I( no e'idence is mentioned suorting the (irst t6o remises> then they are un4usti(ied "%ecause
causal claims are un4usti(ied unless 6e can gi'e some e'idence (or them#.
*. /here(ore> the (irst t6o remises are un4usti(ied.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
25-
2!0
Argument 6
1. Jack is running (or sheri(( and says he should get the 4o% %ecause he2s a 6ar hero.
2. &o6e'er> Jack 6as (ound guilty o( many corrution charges 6hile he 6as a mayor.
*. We shouldn2t trust 6ar heroes to %e a sheri(( 6ho ha'e %een (ound guilty o( corrution charges.
0. /here(ore> Jack shouldn2t get the sheri(( 4o%.
?o in(ormal (allacies are committed here. We might susect that a stra6 man argument is committed
%ecause it mentions someone else2s argument> %ut nothing uncharita%le is said concerning Jack2s
argument. /he argument gi'en against Jack is not a (allacious one %ecause the (la6s discussed are
er(ectly rele'ant to 6hether or not Jack should get the 4o%.
Argument 8
1. +dam argues that racism is 6rong %ecause all racial grous are eBual.
2. &o6e'er> +dam murdered ten eole.
*. We shouldn2t trust murderers.
0. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect +dam2s argument.
/his argument contains a red herring (allacy.
We might susect that a stra6 man argument is committed %ecause someone else2s argument is
mentioned. &o6e'er> nothing uncharita%le is said concerning +dam2s argument. We can realiAe a red
herring (allacy is committed %ecause nothing rele'ant is said concerning +dam2s argumentDand yet it
says 6e should re4ect +dam2s argument. /he argument claims that 6e should re4ect +dam2s argument
%ecause he2s a murderer> %ut e'en murderers can gi'e good arguments. /here(ore> this argument could
%e taken to %e a distraction rather than as engaging in a genuine de%ate.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. It is ossi%le (or murderers to gi'e good arguments.
2. I( it is ossi%le (or murderers to gi'e good arguments> then the remises are irrele'ant.
*. /here(ore> the remises are irrele'ant.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2!1
2!2
Argument 9
1. Whales li'e in the ocean and ha'e (ins.
2. @ish li'e in the ocean and ha'e (ins.
*. I( 6hales ha'e characteristics o( (ish rather than mammals> then it2s likely that 6hales are (ish.
0. /here(ore> it2s likely that 6hales are (ish.
/his argument engages in oneCsidedness.
It is true that 6hales ha'e characteristics o( (ish> %ut 6hales ha'e e'en more characteristics o(
mammals. I( this argument is t6oCsided and gi'es us all the rele'ant in(ormation (or %oth sides> then no
(allacy is committed. /he ro%lem 6ith the argument is 6hat is le(t outDthe e'idence that 6hales ha'e
characteristics o( mammals is ignored. /hat means the argument commits the oneCsidedness (allacy.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that 6hales ha'e more characteristics o( (ish rather
than mammals.
2. &o6e'er> this assumtion is (alse.
*. I( this assumtion is (alse> then the a%o'e argument (ails to ro'e that the conclusion is true.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument (ails to ro'e that the conclusion is true.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2!*
Argument :
1. I( all animals 6ith %ills are %irds> then latyuses are %irds.
2. We should assume all animals 6ith %ills are %irds.
*. /here(ore> 6e should assume that latyuses are %irds.
2!0
/his argument commits the %egging the Buestion (allacy.
/he ro%lem 6ith this argument is that the most contro'ersial remise is assumedDthat all animals
6ith %ills are %irds. I( that2s true> then it2s tri'ial that latyuses are %irds. &o6e'er> 6e can2t 4ust
assume that contro'ersial remises are true that 6ould tri'ially lead to the conclusion 6e 6ant. When
6e do that> 6e %eg the Buestion. /here(ore> this argument %egs the Buestion.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. I( the second remise is a contro'ersial scienti(ic hyothesis and no e'idence suorts it %eing
true> then the remise is un4usti(ied.
2. /he second remise is a scienti(ic hyothesis and no e'idence suorts it %eing true.
*. /here(ore> the second remise is un4usti(ied.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2!5
2!5
Argument 1;
1. Physicists agree that ;instein2s theory o( hysics is more comlete than ?e6ton2s theory o(
hysics.
2. I( hysicists agree a%out something 6ithin their (ield o( e.ertise> then 6e should agree 6ith
them.
*. /here(ore> 6e should agree that ;instein2s theory o( hysics is more comlete than ?e6ton2s
theory o( hysics.
/his argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. It is an aeal to authority %ecause it relies on the e.ert
oinions o( hysicists to 4usti(y 6hat %elie(s 6e should ha'e. &o6e'er> it is a nonC(allacious aeal to
authority %ecause the e.erts agree and ha'e the rele'ant e.ertise.
Argument 11
1. =any 6ar heroes agree that 6e shouldn2t legaliAe sameCse. marriage.
2. I( 6ar heroes %elie'e something> then 6e should agree 6ith them.
*. /here(ore> 6e should agree that 6e shouldn2t legaliAe sameCse. marriage.
/his argument commits the aeal to authority (allacy.
/he Ee.ert oinionF o( 6ar heroes is not rele'ant to olitical> legal> or ethical kno6ledgeK and not all
6ar heroes agree a%out 6hat la6s 6e should ha'e any6ay.
/his could also %e considered to %e a red herring (allacy %ecause the oinions o( 6ar heroes is
irrele'ant to the conclusion and could used as a distraction (rom genuine de%ate.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. War heroes are not e.erts a%out 6hether 6e should legaliAe sameCse. marriage.
2. I( 6ar heroes are not e.erts a%out 6hether 6e should legaliAe sameCse. marriage> then it2s
(alse that Ei( 6ar heroes %elie'e something> then 6e should agree 6ith them.F
*. /here(ore> the second remise is (alse.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2!!
Argument 12
1. /here is no good e'idence that unicorns e.ist.
2. I( unicorns e.ist> then 6e 6ould ha'e ro%a%ly (ound good e'idence o( them %y no6.
*. /here(ore> unicorns ro%a%ly don2t e.ist.
/his argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. We might susect that this argument commits an aeal
to ignorance (allacy %ecause a lack o( e'idence doesn2t ro'e that unicorns don2t e.ist. &o6e'er> it is
also true that 6e 6ould e.ect to (ind e'idence o( unicorns i( they e.ist. =any eole ha'e sent a lot
o( time looking around (or ne6 secies and 6ould lo'e to ro'e unicorns e.ist.
2!)
Argument 13
1. /here is no roo( that %ig(oot doesn2t e.ist.
2. I( there is no roo( that %ig(oot doesn2t e.ist> then 6e should assume that %ig(oot e.ists.
*. /here(ore> 6e should assume that %ig(oot e.ists.
/his argument commits the aeal to ignorance (allacy %ecause it uses a lack o( roo( as e'idence that
6e should %elie'e something. I( %ig(oot doesn2t e.ist> then there2s e'en a higher chance that 6e
6ouldn2t ha'e any roo( that it e.ists.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. I( there is no roo( that unicorns e.ist> then 6e should not assume that unicorns e.ist.
2. I( 6e should not assume unicorns e.ist due to a lack o( e'idence> then 6e should not assume
%ig(oot e.ists due to a lack o( e'idence.
*. /here(ore> the second remise is (alse.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2!-
Argument 13
1. ;'ery human in recorded history 6as mortal.
2. I( e'ery human in recorded history 6as mortal> then e'ery human is ro%a%ly mortal.
*. /here(ore> e'ery human is ro%a%ly mortal.
2)0
/his argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. We might susect that this is a hasty generaliAation
%ecause the argument reBuires us to generaliAe. &o6e'er> this is a er(ectly reasona%le sort o(
generaliAation.
Argument 14
1. /here are testimonials o( eole 6ho use homeoathic remedies 6ho got healthier a(ter using
them.
2. I( there are testimonials o( eole 6ho use homeoathic remedies 6ho got healthier a(ter using
them> then the homeoathic remedies ro%a%ly make eole healthier.
*. /here(ore> the homeoathic remedies ro%a%ly make eole healthier.
/his argument commits the hasty generaliAation (allacy.
/estimonials are in(amously used as Eanecdotal e'idenceF and eole o(ten (allaciously generaliAe
(rom a (e6 cases to e'eryone "or themsel'es#. I( you get healthier a(ter taking a remedy> it is Buite
ossi%le that you 6ould ha'e gotten %etter any6ay.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. It is ossi%le to get healthier a(ter using soCcalled remedies that don2t actually hel us.
2. I( it is ossi%le to get healthier a(ter using soCcalled remedies that don2t actually hel us> then
testimonials are not su((icient e'idence that homeoathic remedies ro%a%ly make us healthier.
*. I( testimonials are not su((icient e'idence that homeoathic remedies ro%a%ly make eole
healthier> then the second remise is (alse.
0. /here(ore> the second remise is (alse.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2)1
2)2
Argument 16
1. We generally shouldn2t attack eole.
2. I( 6e generally shouldn2t attack eole> then there are many situations in 6hich 6e should not
attack other eole.
*. /here(ore> there are many situations in 6hich 6e should not attack other eole.
/his argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. We might susect that the EaccidentF (allacy is
committed %ecause a general rule is in'ol'ed> %ut the general rule is used aroriately.
Argument 18
1. +round 50U o( the oulation gets married at least once.
2. /here(ore> 3rah Win(rey has around a 50U chance o( getting married at least once.
/his argument contains the accident (allacy.
We kno6 this argument is (allacious %ecause 6e can2t aly general rules to seci(ic situations or
eole 6ithout additional in(ormation. We could only do that i( general rules aly to all situations> %ut
they don2t. /hat2s 6hy 6e say there are Ee.cetions to the rule.F
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that 3rah Win(rey has the same odds o( getting
married as e'eryone else.
2. We can2t aly general rules to all cases.
*. I( 6e can2t aly general rules to all cases> then the assumtion that 3rah Win(rey has the
same odds o( getting married as e'eryone else is un4usti(ied.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires an un4usti(ied assumtion.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2)*
2)0
Argument 19
1. ;ither eole learn logic or they generally ha'e a higher chance o( making logical mistakes.
2. =any eole do not learn logic.
*. /here(ore> many eole generally ha'e a higher chance o( making logical mistakes.
/his argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. We might susect that this argument is a (alse dilemma
%ecause there might %e more otions than are listed here> %ut that is ro%a%ly not the case (or this
argument. /here might %e some eole 6ho 6ould make (e6er logical mistakes 6ithout learning
anything a%out logic> %ut that is not usually the case. $earning logic tends to hel eole make (e6er
logical mistakes.
Argument 1:
1. ;ither ?e6ton2s theory o( hysics is er(ect or ;instein2s theory o( hysics is er(ect.
2. ?e6ton2s theory o( hysics is not er(ect.
*. /here(ore> ;instein2s theory o( hysics is er(ect.
/his argument commits the (alse dilemma (allacy.
+lthough ;isntein2s theory o( hysics is suerior to ?e6ton2s theory o( hysics> 6e don2t kno6 that
;instein2s theory is perfect. /here might still %e corrections to %e made> or it might %e incomlete> or a
suerior theory o( hysics might %e de'eloed in the (uture. /here are more otions than are listed here
and yet the argument deends on there only %eing t6o ossi%ilities. /here(ore> the argument commits a
(alse dilemma (allacy.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. We might not kno6 the er(ect theory o( hysics.
2. I( 6e might not kno6 the er(ect theory o( hysics> then the (irst remise is un4usti(ied.
*. /here(ore> the (irst remise is un4usti(ied.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2)5
Argument 2;
1. I( I drink one molecule o( 6ater> it 6ill ha'e no %ene(it (or me.
2. I( I drink t6o or three molecules o( 6ater> it 6ill ha'e no %ene(it (or me.
*. We don2t kno6 ho6 to dra6 the line concerning ho6 many molecules o( 6ater I2d ha'e to drink
(or it to %ene(it me.
0. /here(ore> drinking 6ater 6ill ha'e no %ene(it (or me.
2)5
/his argument commits the continuum (allacy.
9omething 'ague is discussedDho6 much 6ater I ha'e to drink to ha'e a %ene(it> and conclusions are
dra6n %ased on the (act that 6e don2t kno6 6here to Edra6 the line.F &o6e'er> 6e kno6 that drinking
6ater does %ene(it us> e'en though 6e don2t kno6 6here 6e should Edra6 the line.F
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e (allacious argument can %e stated in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that 6e can2t %e %ene(ited %y something unless 6e
kno6 6here to dra6 the line concerning 6hen 6e ha'e enough o( it to %ene(it us.
2. We don2t kno6 e.actly ho6 much 'egeta%les 6e ha'e to eat to %ene(it us.
*. I( 6e don2t kno6 e.actly ho6 much 'egeta%les 6e ha'e to eat to %ene(it us> then it2s (alse that
6e can2t %e %ene(ited %y something unless 6e kno6 6here to dra6 the line concerning 6hen 6e
ha'e enough o( it to %ene(it us.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma to the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2)!
2))
Chapter 25: (ractice identi*ying ) o&0ecting to in*ormal *allacies
/his chater resents t6enty arguments. Rou can determine 6hether or not each argument contains an
in(ormal (allacy. I( so> you can determine 6hich (allacy is resented> ho6 to %est o%4ect to it> and ho6
create an argument ma (or your o%4ection. /he ans6ers are ro'ided in a searate section a(ter6ard.
Mee in mind that the ans6ers ro'ided here can legitimately di((er (rom yours and many o( the
(allacies o'erla.
Arguments
Argument 1
1. I( you eat one otato chi it 6on2t hurt you.
2. I( you eat t6o or three otato chis> they 6on2t hurt you.
*. We can2t dra6 the line concerning ho6 many otato chis 6ould %e unhealthy to eat.
0. /here(ore> it2s ne'er unhealthy to eat otato chis.
Argument 2
1. =edical scientists agree that it2s generally healthy to drink 6ater.
2. I( medical scientists agree that it2s generally healthy to drink 6ater> then it is.
*. /here(ore> it is generally healthy to drink 6ater.
Argument 3
1. /here is no good e'idence that dinosaurs still e.ist.
2. I( there is no good e'idence that dinosaurs still e.ist> then they are ro%a%ly e.tinct "%ecause 6e
6ould e.ect to ha'e (ound good e'idence %y no6#.
*. /here(ore> dinosaurs are ro%a%ly e.tinct.
Argument 3
1. 9ome scientists hyothesiAe that arallel uni'erses might e.ist.
2. We ha'e not ro'en that arallel uni'erses e.ist.
*. I( 6e ha'e not ro'en that the arallel uni'erses e.ist> then they don2t e.ist.
0. /here(ore> arallel uni'erses don2t e.ist.
Argument 4
1. ;ither dogs are mammals or retiles.
2. 1ogs are not retiles.
*. /here(ore> dogs are mammals.
2)-
Argument 6
1. /he 9un rose a%o'e the horiAon e'ery day in human history.
2. I( the 9un rose a%o'e the horiAon e'ery day in human history> then the 9un 6ill ro%a%ly rise
tomorro6.
*. /here(ore> the 9un 6ill ro%a%ly rise tomorro6.
Argument 8
1. ;ither humans are retiles or humans are (ish.
2. &umans are not retiles.
*. /here(ore> humans are (ish.
Argument 9
1. ;'eryone has a (amily tree.
2. I( e'eryone has a (amily tree> then e'eryone has a lant 6ith a long stem or trunk "%ecause trees
are lants 6ith a long 6oody stem#.
*. /here(ore> e'eryone has a lant 6ith a long stem or trunk.
Argument :
1. =a. argues that consensual olygamy among adults should %e illegal %ecause it hurts 6omen.
2. &o6e'er> there are consensual olygamous marriages %et6een adults that don2t hurt anyone.
*. I( there are consensual olygamous marriages %et6een adults that don2t hurt anyone> then 6e
ha'e reason to think that these relationshis don2t hurt eole.
0. /here(ore> 6e ha'e reason to %elie'e that consensual olygamous relationshis don2t hurt
eole.
Argument 1;
1. <ictoria argues that caital unishment is o(ten 6rong %ecause human li(e has 'alue.
2. It seems that <ictoria thinks that 6e should ne'er kill eole %ecause human li(e has 'alue.
*. &o6e'er> 6e might ha'e to kill eole to rotect oursel'es and our lo'ed ones in sel(Cde(ense.
0. /here(ore> <ictoria is 6rong that human li(e has 'alue.
Argument 11
1. Milling eole is al6ays 6rong.
2. I( killing eole is al6ays 6rong> then killing eole in sel(Cde(ense is al6ays 6rong.
*. /here(ore> killing eole in sel(Cde(ense is al6ays 6rong.
2-0
Argument 12
1. I( 6e ha'e a dictatorshi> then 6e can2t hold the dictator accounta%le.
2. I( 6e can2t hold the dictator accounta%le> then the dictator can a%use o6er.
*. I( the dictator can a%use o6er> then she can commit atrocities.
0. We shouldn2t let eole commit atrocities.
5. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t ha'e a dictator.
Argument 13
1. 9ome 6hite eole committed crimes.
2. /here(ore> 6hite eole ha'e unusual tendencies to %e criminals.
Argument 13
1. It2s generally 6rong to unch eole.
2. I( it2s generally 6rong to unch eole> then Cathy shouldn2t unch eole unless she has a 'ery
good reason to do so.
*. Cathy doesn2t ha'e a 'ery good reason to unch a erson 6hen she2s ha'ing a leasant
con'ersation 6ith that erson.
0. /here(ore> it2s 6rong (or Cathy to unch a erson 6hen she2s ha'ing a leasant con'ersation
6ith that erson.
Argument 14
1. I( 6e legaliAe mari4uana> then 6e 6ill e'entually legaliAe heroin.
2. I( 6e e'entually legaliAe heroin> then 6e 6ill e'entually legaliAe human sacri(ice.
*. We shouldn2t legaliAe human sacri(ice.
0. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t legaliAe mari4uana.
Argument 16
1. ;lrond says 6e should 'ote (or the 1emocratic arty (or resident %ecause it hels the oor.
2. &o6e'er> the 1emocratic candidate has used olitical o6er to 'iolate human rights.
*. I( the 1emocratic candidate has used olitical o6er to 'iolate human rights> then 6e ha'e an
imortant consideration against 'oting (or the 1emocratic candidate.
0. /here(ore> 6e ha'e an imortant consideration against 'oting (or the 1emocratic candidate.
Argument 18
1. =any medical ro(essionals think there 6as a second gunman 6ho heled assassinate John @.
Mennedy.
2. I( many medical ro(essionals think something> then 6e should agree 6ith them.
*. /here(ore> 6e should agree that a second gunman heled assassinate John @. Mennedy.
2-1
Argument 19
1. /he 7eu%lican candidate (or resident is 6ealthy.
2. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t 'ote (or the 7eu%lican candidate (or resident.
Argument 1:
1. We generally shouldn2t kill eole.
2. /here(ore> e'eryone 6ho kills other eole should %e sent to rison.
Argument 2;
1. $iAards eat (ood> ha'e legs> and ha'e %ack%ones.
2. =ammals eat (ood> ha'e legs> and ha'e %ack%ones.
*. I( liAards ha'e more characteristics o( mammals than retiles> then they2re mammals.
0. /here(ore> liAards are mammals.
Ans$ers
Argument 1
1. I( you eat one otato chi it 6on2t hurt you.
2. I( you eat t6o or three otato chis> they 6on2t hurt you.
*. We can2t dra6 the line concerning ho6 many otato chis 6ould %e unhealthy to
eat.
0. /here(ore> it2s ne'er unhealthy to eat otato chis.
/he a%o'e argument contains the continuum (allacy.
+n o%4ection to this argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that Ei( 6e can2t dra6 the line concerning ho6
much o( something 6e ha'e to eat (or it to %e unhealthy> then it2s ne'er unhealthy.F
2. &o6e'er> 6e kno6 that eating too much candy is unhealthy and 6e don2t kno6 ho6 to dra6 the
line concerning ho6 much candy 6e ha'e to eat (or it to %e unhealthy.
*. I( 6e kno6 that eating too much candy is unhealthy and 6e don2t kno6 ho6 to dra6 the line
concerning ho6 much candy 6e ha'e to eat (or it to %e unhealthy> then something can %e
unhealthy e'en i( 6e don2t kno6 ho6 to dra6 the line concerning ho6 much o( it 6e ha'e to eat
(or it to %e unhealthy.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2-2
2-*
Argument 2
1. =edical scientists agree that it2s generally healthy to drink 6ater.
2. I( medical scientists agree that it2s generally healthy to drink 6ater> then it is.
*. /here(ore> it is generally healthy to drink 6ater.
/he a%o'e argument does not contain any in(ormal (allacies. It is a nonC(allacious aeal to authority.
Argument 3
1. /here is no good e'idence that dinosaurs still e.ist.
2. I( there is no good e'idence that dinosaurs still e.ist> then they are ro%a%ly
e.tinct "%ecause 6e 6ould e.ect to ha'e (ound good e'idence %y no6#.
*. /here(ore> dinosaurs are ro%a%ly e.tinct.
/he a%o'e argument does not contain any in(ormal (allacies. It isn2t an aeal to ignorance %ecause 6e
6ould need e'idence that dinosaurs still e.ist to reasona%ly %elie'e they are not e.tinct.
Argument 3
1. 9ome scientists hyothesiAe that arallel uni'erses might e.ist.
2. We ha'e not ro'en that arallel uni'erses e.ist.
*. I( 6e ha'e not ro'en that the arallel uni'erses e.ist> then they don2t e.ist.
0. /here(ore> arallel uni'erses don2t e.ist.
/he a%o'e argument contains a (allacious aeal to ignorance.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he third remise is only true i( things only e.ist that are ro'en to e.ist.
2. /here 6as a time %e(ore germs 6ere ro'en to e.ist.
*. I( there 6as a time %e(ore germs 6ere ro'en to e.ist> then it is (alse that things only e.ist that
are ro'en to e.ist.
0. /here(ore> the third remise is (alse.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2-0
Argument 4
1. ;ither dogs are mammals or retiles.
2. 1ogs are not retiles.
*. /here(ore> dogs are mammals.
2-5
/he a%o'e argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. It is not a (alse dilemma %ecause no rele'ant
otions are missing.
Argument 6
1. /he 9un rose a%o'e the horiAon e'ery day in human history.
2. I( the 9un rose a%o'e the horiAon e'ery day in human history> then the 9un 6ill
ro%a%ly rise tomorro6.
*. /here(ore> the 9un 6ill ro%a%ly rise tomorro6.
/he a%o'e argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. It doesn2t contain a hasty generaliAation %ecause
this is a nonC(allacious and reasona%le kind o( generaliAation.
Argument 8
1. ;ither humans are retiles or humans are (ish.
2. &umans are not retiles.
*. /here(ore> humans are (ish.
/he a%o'e argument contains a (alse dilemma.
We can o%4ect to the a%o'e argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires that %eing retiles or (ish are the only t6o otions (or humans.
2. &o6e'er> humans could %e mammals.
*. I( humans could %e mammals> then the (irst remise is (alse.
0. /here(ore> the (irst remise is (alse.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2-5
Argument 9
1. ;'eryone has a (amily tree.
2. I( e'eryone has a (amily tree> then e'eryone has a lant 6ith a long stem or trunk
"%ecause trees are lants 6ith a long 6oody stem#.
2-!
*. /here(ore> e'eryone has a lant 6ith a long stem or trunk.
/he a%o'e argument contains an eBui'ocation.
1. /he a%o'e argument uses the 6ord 2tree2 in t6o di((erent 6ays.
2. I( the a%o'e argument uses the 6ord 2tree2 in t6o di((erent 6ays> then it2s logically in'alid.
*. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument is logically in'alid.
We can suort the second remise 6ith the (ollo6ing argument:
1. +n argument is logically in'alid i( another argument can use the same (orm> ha'e true remises>
and a (alse conclusion.
2. I( the a%o'e argument uses the 6ord 2tree2 in t6o di((erent 6ays> then the argument (orm is E+K
i( 8> then CK there(ore C.F
*. E;'eryone has a heartK a heartCshaed o%4ect is an o%4ect 6ith a ointy end and t6o round
shaes on the other endK there(ore> e'eryone has an o%4ect 6ith a ointy end and t6o round
shaes on the other endF is an argument 6ith the same (orm as the a%o'e argument> it has true
remises> and a (alse conclusion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
2-)
2--
Argument :
1. =a. argues that consensual olygamy among adults should %e illegal %ecause it
hurts 6omen.
2. &o6e'er> there are consensual olygamous marriages %et6een adults that don2t
hurt anyone.
*. I( there are consensual olygamous marriages %et6een adults that don2t hurt
anyone> then 6e ha'e reason to think that these relationshis don2t hurt eole.
0. /here(ore> 6e ha'e reason to %elie'e that consensual olygamous relationshis
don2t hurt eole.
/his argument does not contain any in(ormal (allacies. It does not contain a stra6 man (allacy %ecause
=a.2s argument is not uncharita%ly descri%ed.
Argument 1;
1. <ictoria argues that caital unishment is 6rong %ecause human li(e has 'alue.
2. It seems that <ictoria thinks that 6e should ne'er kill eole %ecause human li(e
has 'alue.
*. &o6e'er> 6e might ha'e to kill eole to rotect oursel'es and our lo'ed ones in
sel(Cde(ense.
0. /here(ore> <ictoria is 6rong that human li(e has 'alue.
/he a%o'e argument contains a stra6 man (allacy.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he second remise is only true i( it2s imossi%le (or human li(e to ha'e 'alue and (or it to %e
morally right to kill a erson.
2. It is ossi%le (or human li(e to ha'e 'alue and (or it to %e morally right to kill a erson "%ecause
it could %e morally right to kill a erson 6ho has 'alue 6hen necessary to sa'e many other
'alua%le li'es#.
*. /here(ore> the second remise is (alse.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*00
*01
Argument 11
1. Milling eole is al6ays 6rong.
2. I( killing eole is al6ays 6rong> then killing eole in sel(Cde(ense is al6ays
6rong.
*. /here(ore> killing eole in sel(Cde(ense is al6ays 6rong.
/he a%o'e argument contains a %egging the Buestion (allacy.
/he (ollo6ing is an o%4ection to the a%o'e argument:
1. It2s not al6ays 6rong to kill eole 6hen 6e ha'e to do it to (or sel(Cde(ense.
2. I( it2s not al6ays 6rong to kill eole 6hen 6e ha'e to do it (or sel(Cde(ense> then it2s (alse that
killing eole is al6ays 6rong.
*. /here(ore> the (irst remise is (alse.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*02
*0*
Argument 12
1. I( 6e ha'e a dictatorshi> then 6e can2t hold the dictator accounta%le.
2. I( 6e can2t hold the dictator accounta%le> then the dictator can a%use o6er.
*. I( the dictator can a%use o6er> then she can commit atrocities.
0. We shouldn2t let eole commit atrocities.
5. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t ha'e a dictator.
/he a%o'e argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. It doesn2t contain a (allacious sliery sloe
%ecause the imlications discussed are 4usti(ied.
Argument 13
1. 9ome 6hite eole committed crimes.
2. /here(ore> 6hite eole ha'e unusual tendencies to %e criminals.
/he a%o'e argument contains the hasty generaliAation (allacy.
We can o%4ect to the a%o'e argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires that 6e assume that it is imossi%le that some eole (rom a racial
grou commit crimes 6ithout ha'ing unusual tendencies to %e criminals.
2. &o6e'er> some eole (rom e'ery racial grou commits crimes.
*. I( some eole (rom e'ery racial grou commits crimes> then it is ossi%le that some eole
(rom a racial grou commit crimes 6ithout ha'ing unusual tendencies to %e criminals.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*00
*05
Argument 13
1. It2s generally 6rong to unch eole.
2. I( it2s generally 6rong to unch eole> then Cathy shouldn2t unch eole unless
she has a 'ery good reason to do so.
*. Cathy doesn2t ha'e a 'ery good reason to unch a erson 6hen she2s ha'ing a
leasant con'ersation 6ith that erson.
0. /here(ore> it2s 6rong (or Cathy to unch a erson 6hen she2s ha'ing a leasant
con'ersation 6ith that erson.
/he a%o'e argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. It doesn2t contain the accident (allacy %ecause the
general rule is aroriately rele'ant to the argument.
Argument 14
1. I( 6e legaliAe mari4uana> then 6e 6ill e'entually legaliAe heroin.
2. I( 6e e'entually legaliAe heroin> then 6e 6ill e'entually legaliAe human
sacri(ice.
*. We shouldn2t legaliAe human sacri(ice.
0. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t legaliAe mari4uana.
/he a%o'e argument contains the sliery sloe (allacy.
+n o%4ection to the a%o'e argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. Premises that resent contro'ersial causal (acts 6ithout resenting e'idence (or them are
un4usti(ied.
2. /he (irst and second remises o( the a%o'e argument resent contro'ersial causal (acts 6ithout
e'idence (or them.
*. /he (irst and second remises are un4usti(ied.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*05
*0!
Argument 16
1. ;lrond says 6e should 'ote (or the 1emocratic arty (or resident %ecause it
hels the oor.
2. &o6e'er> the 1emocratic candidate has used olitical o6er to 'iolate human
rights.
*. I( the 1emocratic candidate has used olitical o6er to 'iolate human rights>
then 6e ha'e an imortant consideration against 'oting (or the 1emocratic
candidate.
0. /here(ore> 6e ha'e an imortant consideration against 'oting (or the 1emocratic
candidate.
/he a%o'e argument contains no in(ormal (allacies. /he a%o'e argument is not a red herring %ecause
the argument is rele'ant to ;lrond2s oint.
Argument 18
1. =any medical ro(essionals think there 6as a second gunman 6ho heled
assassinate John @. Mennedy.
2. I( many medical ro(essionals think something> then 6e should agree 6ith them.
*. /here(ore> 6e should agree that a second gunman heled assassinate John @.
Mennedy.
/he a%o'e argument contains the aeal to authority (allacy.
We can o%4ect to the a%o'e argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he second remise reBuires the assumtion that medical ro(essionals are e.erts regarding
the Mennedy assassination.
2. &o6e'er> medical ro(essionals are not e.erts regarding the Mennedy assassination.
*. /here(ore> the second remise reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*0)
Argument 19
1. /he 7eu%lican candidate (or resident is 6ealthy.
2. /here(ore> 6e shouldn2t 'ote (or the 7eu%lican candidate (or resident.
*0-
/he a%o'e argument contains the red herring (allacy.
We can o%4ect to the a%o'e argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that %eing 6ealthy disBuali(ies a erson (rom
%eing a Buali(ied residential candidate.
2. /homas Je((erson 6as 6ealthy and 6as a Buali(ied residential candidate.
*. I( there is nothing a%out %eing a 6ealthy residential candidate that disBuali(ies a erson (rom
%eing a Buali(ied erson as a residential candidate> then the assumtion is (alse.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*10
*11
Argument 1:
1. We generally shouldn2t kill eole.
2. /here(ore> e'eryone 6ho kills other eole should %e sent to rison.
/h a%o'e argument contains an accident (allacy.
We can o%4ect to the a%o'e argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that i( 6e generally shouldn2t kill eole> then
e'eryone 6ho kills other eole should %e sent to rison.
2. &o6e'er> i( 6e generally shouldn2t kill eole> then some eole 6ho kill someone else
%ecause it2s necessary (or sel(Cde(ense did nothing 6rong.
*. I( someone does nothing 6rong> then that erson should not %e sent to rison.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*12
*1*
Argument 2;
1. $iAards eat (ood> ha'e legs> and ha'e %ack%ones.
2. =ammals eat (ood> ha'e legs> and ha'e %ack%ones.
*. I( liAards ha'e more characteristics o( mammals than retiles> then they2re
mammals.
0. /here(ore> liAards are mammals.
/he a%o'e argument commits the oneCsidedness (allacy.
We can o%4ect to the a%o'e argument in the (ollo6ing 6ay:
1. /he a%o'e argument reBuires the assumtion that EliAards ha'e more characteristics o( retiles
than mammals.F
2. I( liAards are coldC%looded and lack mammary glands> then they ha'e more characteristics o(
retiles than o( mammals.
*. $iAards are coldC%looded and lack mammary glands.
0. /here(ore> the a%o'e argument reBuires a (alse assumtion.
+n argument ma (or the a%o'e o%4ection is the (ollo6ing:
*10
*15
Part 7I: >inding and e(amining arguments
+rgument maing and critical thinking are meant to %e alied to e'eryday li(e: /o our thoughts> to
our con'ersations> and to %etter understanding the arguments gi'en %y others. /his section is (ocused
on doing e.actly that. In articular> it is discusses ho6 6e can identi(y arguments> identi(y remises
and conclusions> and (ind hidden remises. /hese sections can hel imro'e skills that are imortant
(or reading> e.amining> and creating arguments.
*15
Chapter 2: 3denti*ying arguments
+rguments are attemts to gi'e us reasons to %elie'e something. /hey are attemts to ans6er the
Buestion> EWhy is that %elie( rationally 4usti(ied,F +rguments ha'e remises "the e'idence or
4usti(ication# and a conclusion "6hat is imlied to %e true (rom the remises#. +rgument mas can
make arguments e.licit> %ut argument mas 6ill only hel i( 6e can understand 6hen eole resent
arguments. <arious tis can hel us kno6 6hen an argument is in a te.t 6e are reading. It can also %e
imortant to realiAe the di((erence %et6een assertions> e.lanations> and argumentsK and it can %e
use(ul to consider 'arious 6ays that arguments are commonly resented.
)e di""erence bet$een assertions2 explanations2 and arguments
Assertions Q +ssertions are claims a%out the truth. @or e.amle> E9tealing is morally 6rongF is an
assertion. +ssertions are o(ten gi'en 6ithout argument and 6ithout any reason (or us to agree 6ith
them. ?ot all assertions are arguments. ;'en so> the 4usti(ications 6e gi'e (or our %elie(s are assertions>
6hich are used to (orm arguments. Consider the argument> E9ocrates is a man. +ll men are mortal.
/here(ore> 9ocrates is a mortal.F /hat argument consists in three assertions. /he (irst t6o assertions are
the remises o( the argument> and the third is the conclusion.
Explanations Q ;.lanations tell us 6hy things are ho6 they are. /hey ans6er the Buestions> EWhy
did that haen,F or EWhy is the 6orld like this,F +n e.amle o( an e.lanation is> Ethe %all (ell to the
ground %ecause o( the ;arth2s gra'itational (orce.F ;.lanations use many o( the same 6ords as
arguments "e.g. 2%ecause2 and 2there(ore.2# @or that reason it is imortant that 6e kee in mind the
intentions %ehind the 6ords. Is someone telling us 6hy a %elie( is 4usti(ied or 6hy the 6orld is ho6 it
is,
3ne ti to hel distinguish %et6een arguments and e.lanations is that e.lanations tell us 6hy
something is true that 6e kno6 is true> and the reasons gi'en (or 6hy it is true are less o%'ious than
6hate'er is %eing e.lained. @or e.amle> 6e kno6 that 6ay ha'e night and day> %ut not e'eryone
kno6s that 6e ha'e night and day %ecause the ;arth is sinning on its a.is. "+dditionally> arguments
generally reBuire that the remises are more lausi%le than the conclusion.#
Mee in mind that hilosohers o(ten gi'e us e.lanations as to 6hy certain things are true. @or
e.amle> telling us 6hy killing eole is 6rong could in'ol'e a Emoral theory.F Ltilitarianism is a
moral theory that attemts to e.lain 6hy actions are right or 6rong in terms o( ho6 much hainess
or su((ering the actions cause comared to the alternati'es.
<o$ arguments are presented
Consider the (ollo6ing three 6ays that arguments are resented: 3ne> the conclusion can %e stated (irst.
/6o> the conclusion can %e stated last. /hree> as a Buestion.
Conclusion stated "irst Q + common 6ay these arguments are hrased is E+ %ecause 8.F @or e.amle>
E9ocrates is a mortal %ecause he2s a man and all men are mortal.F
*1!
Conclusion stated last Q /hese arguments are commonly hrased as E+ and 8> there(ore C.F @or
e.amle> E+ll liAards are retiles and all retiles are animalsK there(ore> all liAards are animals.F
As a ,uestion Q Vuestions are not technically arguments> %ut they are o(ten used to imly o%4ections.
Consider the (ollo6ing t6o e.amles: 3ne> someone says that all people are immortal& and someone
else then asks> E8ut didn2t 9ocrates die,F /his Buestion imlies the o%4ectionD9ocrates died and he2s a
erson> so not all eole are immortal.F /6o> someone could ask> EI( 6hales are mammals> then 6hy
do 6hales ha'e (ins,F /his Buestion seems to imly the o%4ectionDEWhales can2t %e mammals %ecause
mammals don2t ha'e (ins.F
("0.1 6(amples of identif%ing arguments
/his section 6ill resent ten assages that each contain an argument> assertion> e.lanation> or
BuestionK and an e.lanation 6ill %e ro'ided concerning ho6 6e can identi(y 6hat the assage
contains. Mee in mind that some Buestions are used to resent arguments.
Passage 1
9ocrates is a hilosoher. I( 9ocrates is a hilosoher> then he2s a erson. /here(ore>
9ocrates is a erson.
/his is an argument. /here are reasons gi'en (or 6hy 6e should %elie'e that 9ocrates is a erson.
Passage 2
I( &iarchia is a hilosoher> then is she a erson,
/his is a Buestion. ?o reasons are gi'en (or us to %elie'e anything.
Passage 3
/he 9un rises %ecause the 6orld sins.
/his is an e.lanation. We kno6 the 9un rises> and the 6orld sinning tells us 6hy the 9un rises. We
kno6 the 9un rises (rom o%ser'ation> not %ecause the 6orld sins.
Passage 3
=urder is morally 6rong.
/his is an assertion. We are gi'en no reason to agree 6ith it.
*1)
Passage 4
/he(t is 6rong %ecause it makes eole unhay.
/his is an argument. We are gi'en a reason to agree that the(t is 6rong.
Passage 6
=ost humans can see %ecause they ha'e (unctioning eyesK and i( they ha'e (unctioning
eyes> then they can see.
/his is an e.lanation that tells us 6hy most humans can see things. It doesn2t ro'e to us 6hy 6e
should agree that most eole can see. We %elie'e most humans can see %ecause 6e ha'e met many o(
them> not %ecause 6e kno6 their eyes (unction.
Passage 8
?ot all eole re(er chocolate o'er 'anilla ice cream.
/his is an assertion. ?o reason is gi'en (or us to agree 6ith it.
Passage 9
9ome eole %elie'e that the ;arth is (lat> %ut 6e2'e taken ictures o( it (rom sace and
see that it2s round (rom the ictures.
/his is an argument. It tells us 6hy 6e should re4ect the %elie( that the ;arth is (lat.
Passage :
We ha'e seasons %ecause the ;arth sins on a tilted a.isK and i( the ;arth sins on a
tilted a.is> then 6e ha'e seasons.
/his is an e.lanation. It tells us 6hy 6e ha'e seasons. It does not tell us 6hy 6e should %elie'e that
6e ha'e seasons. We %elie'e 6e ha'e seasons %ecause the num%er o( daylight hours 6e ha'e during
each day changes> and 6e kne6 a%out that %e(ore 6e (ound out that it haens %ecause the ;arth sins
on a tilted a.is.
*1-
Passage 1;
9ome eole say that the(t is al6ays 6rong %ecause it makes eole unhay> %ut 6hat
a%out the (act that 6e can steal (rom the rich to hel the oor,
/his Buestion imlies an argument to tell us 6hy 6e should agree that the(t isn2t al6ays 6rong. /he
argument suggested here is that 6e shouldn2t agree that the(t is al6ays 6rong %ecause 6e can steal
(rom the rich to gi'e to the oor> and it can make the oor hay as a result.
("0." Practice identif%ing arguments
/his section resents t6enty assages that each contain an argument> assertion> e.lanation> or
Buestion. Rou can then decide 6hich category descri%es the assage %est. Mee in mind that some
Buestions are used to resent arguments. /he ans6ers are resented a(ter6ard.
Problem 1
I( &iarchia is a 6oman> then she is a mammal. I( &iarchia is a mammal> then she is a li'ing
organism. /here(ore> i( &iarchia is a 6oman> then she is a li'ing organism.
Problem 2
9ocrates is a mortal %ecause he2s a mammal and all mammals are mortal.
Problem 3
Coins (all 6hene'er 6e dro them %ecause o( the gra'itational (orce o( the ;arth.
Problem 3
/he President o( the Lnited 9tates is a mammal %ecause he2s a 6hale.
Problem 4
Why is it 6rong to gi'e to charity,
Problem 6
9ome eole %elie'e that racism is 6rong.
Problem 8
9ome eole %elie'e that economic ineBuality is 6rong> %ut 6hy do they %elie'e that,
*20
Problem 9
9ome eole %elie'e that rich eole deser'e their money> %ut 6hat a%out the (act that some rich
eole got the money (rom the(t,
Problem :
We kno6 6hales are (ish %ecause 6hales ha'e (ins and li'e in the 6ater.
Problem 1;
Peole o(ten get sick %ecause %acteria and 'iruses cause sickness.
Problem 11
9ome eole die %ecause some oisons are deadly and some eole consume oison.
Problem 12
Why do eole %elie'e that income ineBuality is 4usti(ied,
Problem 13
9ome eole %elie'e that charity is al6ays right> %ut 6hat a%out 6hen charity is gi'en to destructi'e
organiAations,
Problem 13
+ll men are mortal and 9ocrates is a man.
Problem 14
;ating healthy makes eole healthier %ecause 6e need certain nutrients to %e healthy and eating
healthy assures us that 6e get nutrients 6e need to %e healthy.
Problem 16
;ating too many otato chis is unhealthy %ecause it contains (at and eating too much (at is unhealthy.
Problem 18
;ating too many otato chis is a %ad idea %ecause it can make us unhealthyK and i( eating too many
otato chis makes us unhealthy> then it2s a %ad idea to eat them.
*21
Problem 19
9amantha thinks that 8ugs 8unny is a human> %ut 6hat a%out all the cartoons that sho6 that 8ugs
8unny is a ra%%it,
Problem 1:
=any eole think that 'iolence is morally 6rong> %ut 6hat a%out the (act that 6e sometimes ha'e to
harm others in sel(Cde(ense to rotect oursel'es,
Problem 2;
=any eole think that e.ercise makes them healthier> %ut eole should also eat healthier.
Ans$ers
Problem 1
I( &iarchia is a 6oman> then she is a mammal. I( &iarchia is a mammal> then she is
a li'ing organism. /here(ore> i( &iarchia is a 6oman> then she is a li'ing organism.
/his is an argument.
Problem 2
9ocrates is a mortal %ecause he2s a mammal and all mammals are mortal.
/his is an argument.
Problem 3
Coins (all 6hene'er 6e dro them %ecause o( the gra'itational (orce o( the ;arth.
/his is an e.lanation.
Problem 3
/he President o( the Lnited 9tates is a mammal %ecause he2s a 6hale.
/his is an argument.
Problem 4
Why is it 6rong to gi'e to charity,
*22
/his is a Buestion.
Problem 6
9ome eole %elie'e that racism is 6rong.
/his is an assertion.
Problem 8
9ome eole %elie'e that economic ineBuality is 6rong> %ut 6hy do they %elie'e that,
/his is a Buestion.
Problem 9
9ome eole %elie'e that rich eole deser'e their money> %ut 6hat a%out the (act that
some rich eole got the money (rom the(t,
/his Buestion imlies an argument.
Problem :
We kno6 6hales are (ish %ecause 6hales ha'e (ins and li'e in the 6ater.
/his is an argument.
Problem 1;
Peole o(ten get sick %ecause %acteria and 'iruses cause sickness.
/his is an e.lanation.
Problem 11
9ome eole die %ecause some oisons are deadly and some eole consume oison.
/his is an e.lanation.
Problem 12
Why do eole %elie'e that income ineBuality is 4usti(ied,
/his is a Buestion.
*2*
Problem 13
9ome eole %elie'e that charity is al6ays right> %ut 6hat a%out 6hen charity is gi'en to
destructi'e organiAations,
/his Buestion imlies an argument.
Problem 13
+ll men are mortal and 9ocrates is a man.
/his is an assertion.
Problem 14
;ating healthy makes eole healthier %ecause 6e need certain nutrients to %e healthy
and eating healthy assures us that 6e get nutrients 6e need to %e healthy.
/his is an e.lanation.
Problem 16
;ating too many otato chis is unhealthy %ecause it contains (at and eating too much (at
is unhealthy.
/his is an e.lanation.
Problem 18
;ating too many otato chis is a %ad idea %ecause it can make us unhealthyK and i(
eating too many otato chis makes us unhealthy> then it2s a %ad idea to eat them.
/his is an argument.
Problem 19
9amantha thinks that 8ugs 8unny is a human> %ut 6hat a%out all the cartoons that sho6
that 8ugs 8unny is a ra%%it,
/his Buestion imlies an argument.
Problem 1:
=any eole think that 'iolence is morally 6rong> %ut 6hat a%out the (act that 6e
sometimes ha'e to harm others in sel(Cde(ense to rotect oursel'es,
*20
/his Buestion imlies an argument.
Problem 2;
=any eole think that e.ercise makes them healthier> %ut eole should also eat
healthier.
/his is an assertion.
*25
Chapter 2': 5inding premises and conclusions
+rgument mas make the remises and conclusions o( arguments e.licit> %ut 6e can2t al6ays create
argument mas in e'eryday li(e unless 6e understand ho6 to identi(y remises and conclusions o(
arguments. We can (ind and distinguish remises and conclusions %y considering "a# the (act that
conclusions should generally %e less contro'ersial than the remises and "%# a list o( remise and
conclusion indicators.
Conclusions s)ould generally be less ob*ious t)an t)e premises1
Premises are only reasons to %elie'e conclusions 6hen 6e are likely to agree 6ith them. /he
assumtion is that our remises are already kno6n to %e true "or are at least 4usti(ied %elie(s#> and that
the conclusion is true because the premises are true "or the conclusion is 4usti(ied %ecause the remises
are ro%a%ly true.# Consider the argument> Ethe death enalty is 6rong %ecause it makes eole
unhay> and it2s 6rong to make eole unhay.F /he remises are gi'en under the assumtion that
eole are likely to agree that the death enalty makes eole unhay and it2s 6rong to make eole
unhay> and that eole are less likely to agree 6ith the conclusion "that the death enalty is 6rong#.
In this case the erson 6ho made the argument is likely trying to con'ince eole that the death enalty
is 6rong recisely %ecause it is a contro'ersial oint o( 'ie6.
Premise and conclusion indicators
Premise and conclusion indicators are 6ords and hrases that make it e.licit 6hether 6e are gi'ing a
remise or a conclusion. Peole do not al6ays use indicators> %ut they are 6idely used (or at least one
remise or the conclusion.
Premise indicators
<arious remise indicators include the (ollo6ing:
%ecause
since
(or the reason that
as sho6n %y
as indicated %y
;.amles:
1. +ll liAards are animals because all liAards are retiles and all retiles are animals.
2. 9ocrates is mortal since he is a man and all men are mortal.
*. It2s 6rong to attack eole for the reason that it can cause them ain.
0. Whales are mammals as is shown by the (act that 6hales gi'e %irth to li'e young and are 6armC
%looded.
5. &urting eole is not al6ays 6rong as is indicated by the (act that 6e might %e 4usti(ied in
*25
hurting others in sel(Cde(ense.
Conclusion indicators
<arious conclusion indicators include the (ollo6ing:
there(ore
so
hence
thus
ergo
(ollo6s that
conseBuently
6e can deduce
demonstrates that
imlies that
indicates that
;.amles:
1. +ll liAards are retiles and all retiles are animalsK therefore> all liAards are animals.
2. 9ocrates is a man and all men are mortalK so> 9ocrates is a mortal.
*. +ttacking eole can cause eole ain. ,ence> it is 6rong to attack eole.
0. We are sometimes 4usti(ied in hurting eole in sel(Cde(ense. Thus> it is not al6ays 6rong to
hurt eole.
5. /he death enalty makes eole unhay and it2s 6rong to make eole unhay. !rgo> the
death enalty is 6rong.
5. Considering that 6hales gi'e %irth to li'e young and are 6arm %looded> it follows that 6hales
are mammals.
!. 9ometimes 6e ha'e to hinder the interests o( eole 6ho commit crimes. Conse)uently> it is not
al6ays 6rong to hinder the interests o( eole 6ho commit crimes.
). -e can deduce the (act that dogs are mortal (rom the (act that all mammals are mortal and all
dogs are mammals.
-. /he (act that sa'ing a dro6ning child 6hen it2s easy to do so is morally reBuired demonstrates
that it2s morally reBuired to hel sa'e li'es in general 6hen it2s easy to do so.
10. /he (act that 6e all see the same 6orld implies that the 6orld actually e.ists.
*2!
("4.1 6(amples of identif%ing premises and conclusions
/his section resents three historical assages containing arguments> then it e.lains 6hat the remises
and conclusions are. Identi(ying remises and conclusions reBuires interretation. Interretation
reBuires us to try to understand 6hat eole are trying to say> and it2s o(ten a good idea to rehrase the
remises and conclusions that eole resent in order to %etter understand the argument %eing made.
Mee in mind that interretation is not al6ays clearCcut. We 6ill o(ten ha'e to make 4udgment calls
concerning the %est 6ays to understand an argument> and there can sometimes %e multile legitimate
6ays 6e can interret an argument.
Passage 1
ICJoncerning 4ustice> 6hat is it,Dto seak the truth and to ay your de%tsDno more
than this, +nd e'en to this are there not e.cetions, 9uose that a (riend 6hen in his
right mind has deosited arms 6ith me and he asks (or them 6hen he is not in his right
mind> ought I to gi'e them %ack to him, ?o one 6ould say that I ought or that I should
%e right in doing so> any more than they 6ould say that I ought al6ays to seak the truth
to one 6ho is in his condition.
2
/he seaker> 9ocrates> considers the %elie( that 4ustice is nothing %ut to Eseak the truth and ay your
de%tsF and asks some Buestions 6hich imly a countere.amle. We should not return a 6eaon to a
(riend 6hen he is drunk> enraged> or insane %ecause he is likely to use the 6eaon to hurt someone and
regret it later on "or 6ould regret it i( he e'er regains sanity#.
9ocrates is gi'ing an o%4ection %ecause he2s gi'ing us a reason to re4ect a certain de(inition o( 4ustice.
/here(ore> his conclusion is> E4ustice is not merely to seak the truth and ay your de%ts.F /he reason
he re4ects this is %ecause Ei( 4ustice is merely to seak the truth and ay your de%ts> then 6e ought to
return a 6eaon to a (riend e'en 6hen he isn2t in his right mindK and 6e shouldn2t return the 6eaon in
this situation.F
We can then reconstruct the argument as the (ollo6ing:
1. I( 4ustice is merely to seak the truth and ay your de%ts> then 6e ought to return a 6eaon to a
(riend 6hen he isn2t in his right mind.
2. We ought not return a 6eaon to a (riend 6hen he isn2t in his right mind.
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the 'ie6 that 4ustice is merely to seak the truth and ay your de%ts.
/he argument ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
2 Plato. The Dialogues of Plato in .ive +olumes/ *rd ed. /rans. 8. Jo6ett> =.+. The Republic. "3.(ord Lni'ersity Press>
1)-2. 0nline 1ibrary of 1iberty. We%. ) =ar. 2012.# 9ection **1.
*2)
Passage 2
In u%lic schools 6omen> to guard against the errors o( ignorance> should %e taught the
elements o( anatomy and medicine> not only to ena%le them to take roer care o( their
o6n health> %ut to make them rational nurses o( their in(ants> arents> and hus%andsK (or
the %ills o( mortality are s6elled %y the %lunders o( sel(C6illed old 6omen> 6ho gi'e
nostrums o( their o6n 6ithout kno6ing any thing o( the human (rame.
*
=ary Wollstonecra(t concludes that 6omen should %e taught elements o( anatomy and medicine so
they can %e Buali(ied nurses o( their (amily mem%ers "unlike certain old 6omen 6ho are unBuali(ied#.
/he conclusion is that E6omen should %e taught elements o( anatomy and medicineF and the remises
are E6e should make sure 6omen are Buali(ied nurses (or their (amiliesF and E6e can make sure
6omen are Buali(ied nurses (or their (amilies %y educating them a%out anatomy and medicine in u%lic
schools.F
We can reconstruct the argument as the (ollo6ing:
1. We should make sure 6omen are Buali(ied nurses (or their (amilies.
2. We can make sure 6omen are Buali(ied nurses (or their (amilies %y educating them a%out
anatomy and medicine in u%lic schools.
*. /here(ore> 6omen should %e taught elements o( anatomy and medicine in u%lic schools.
/he argument ma (or this argument is the (ollo6ing:
* =ary Wollstonecra(t. ( +indication of the Rights of -oman with Strictures on Political and 2oral Sub'ects/ "$ondon: J.
Johnson> 1!-2. The 0nline 1ibrary of 1iberty. We%. ) =arch 2012.# Chater WII.
*2-
Passage 3
It is curious to o%ser'e> at this 4uncture> 6hen the e.istence o( sla'ery is threatened %y
an aroused nation> 6hen national necessity is com%ining 6ith an enlightened sense o(
4ustice to ut a6ay the huge a%omination (ore'er> that the enemies o( human li%erty are
resorting to all the old and ten thousand times re(uted o%4ections to emanciation 6ith
6hich they con(ronted the a%olition mo'ement t6entyC(i'e years ago. $ike the one
started a%o'e> those roCsla'ery o%4ections ha'e their o6er mainly in the sla'eryC
engendered re4udice> 6hich e'ery 6here er'ades the country. $ike all other great
transgressions o( the la6 o( eternal rectitude> sla'ery thus roduces an element in the
oular and dera'ed moral sentiment (a'ora%le to its o6n e.istence. /hese o%4ections
are o(ten urged 6ith a sho6 o( sincere solicitude (or the 6el(are o( the sla'es
themsel'es. It is said> 6hat 6ill you do 6ith them, they canXt take care o( themsel'esK
they 6ould all come to the ?orthK they 6ould not 6orkK they 6ould %ecome a %urden
uon the 9tate> and a %lot uon societyK theyXd cut their mastersX throatsK they 6ould
cheaen la%or> and cro6d out the oor 6hite la%orers (rom emloymentK their (ormer
masters 6ould not emloy them> and they 6ould necessarily %ecome 'agrants> auers
and criminals> o'erCrunning all our alms houses> 4ails and risons... What shall %e done
6ith the (our million sla'es i( they are emanciated,
/his Buestion has %een ans6ered> and can %e ans6ered in many 6ays. Primarily> it is a
Buestion less (or man than (or GodDless (or human intellect than (or the la6s o( nature
to sol'e. It assumes that nature has erredK that the la6 o( li%erty is a mistakeK that
(reedom> though a natural 6ant o( human soul> can only %e en4oyed at the e.ense o(
human 6el(are> and that men are %etter o(( in sla'ery than they 6ould or could %e in
**0
(reedomK that sla'ery is the natural order o( human relations> and that li%erty is an
e.eriment. What shall %e done 6ith them,
3ur ans6er is> do nothing 6ith themK mind your %usiness> and let them mind theirs. Rour
doing 6ith them is their greatest mis(ortune. /hey ha'e %een undone %y your doings>
and all they no6 ask> and really ha'e need o( at your hands> is 4ust to let them alone.
/hey su((er %y e'er inter(erence> and succeed %est %y %eing let alone.
0
@rederick 1ouglass resents t6o main arguments in this assage. /he (irst is an argument that sla'es
shouldn2t %e emanciated %ecause the esta%lishment doesn2t kno6 6hat to do 6ith them> so it2s likely to
cause a lot o( ro%lems. /he second argument is an o%4ection to that argument.
/he (irst argument is imlied %y the Buestion> EWhat shall %e done 6ith them,F along 6ith seculation
a%out the horri%le things that could haen i( the sla'es are (reed. It is said that this argument is gi'en
%y those 6ho retend to %e concerned 6ith the %ene(it o( the sla'es> so the imlication is that someone
6ants to argue that it 6ouldn2t %e good (or the sla'es to %e (reed. 9o> the conclusion imlied is that Ethe
sla'es shouldn2t %e (reed unless something can %e done 6ith them>F and at least one reason in suort
o( the conclusion is that E%eing (reed 6ould %e %ad (or the sla'es unless something is done 6ith them.F
/he argument can %e reconstructed as the (ollo6ing:
1. 8eing (reed 6ould %e %ad (or the sla'es unless something is done 6ith them.
2. /here(ore> they shouldn2t %e (reed unless something is done 6ith them.
@rederick 1ouglass then resonds to the Buestion %y saying that nothing should %e done 6ith the sla'es
and the sla'es 6ill %e %etter o(( i( they2re le(t alone. /he conclusion is that Enothing should %e done
6ith the sla'es and they should %e (reedF and the reasons gi'en in suort o( the conclusion is that Ei(
the e'idence suorts that eole su((er (rom %eing ensla'ed and 2dealt 6ith2 rather than the 'ie6 that
they are heled %y %eing ensla'ed> then it2s likely that the sla'es 6ill %e %etter o(( i( they2re (reed and
le(t aloneF and Ethe e'idence suorts that eole su((er (rom %eing ensla'ed and 2dealt 6ith2 rather
than the 'ie6 that they are heled %y %eing ensla'ed or 2dealt 6ith.2F /his argument is an o%4ection
%ecause the conclusion is a re4ection o( the oosing argument2s remise.
We can reconstruct the o%4ection as the (ollo6ing:
1. I( the e'idence suorts that eole su((er (rom %eing ensla'ed and Edealt 6ithF rather than the
'ie6 that they are heled %y %eing ensla'ed or Edealt 6ith>F then it2s likely that the sla'es 6ill
%e %etter o(( i( they2re (reed and le(t alone.
2. /he e'idence suorts that eole 6ould %e %etter o(( i( they2re (reed and le(t alone rather than
the 'ie6 that eole are heled %y %eing ensla'ed or Edealt 6ith.F
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect the %elie( that E%eing (reed 6ould %e %ad (or the sla'es unless
something is done 6ith them.F
/he argument ma (or these arguments is the (ollo6ing:
0 @rederick 1ouglass. EWhat 9hall 8e 1one 6ith the 9la'es I( ;manciated,F Douglass" 2onthly/ "January 1)52.
Teaching(merican,istory/org. We%. ) =ar. 2012.#
**1
("4." Practice identif%ing premises and conclusions
/his section resents (i'e assages o( historical imortance containing arguments. Rou can then (igure
out 6hat the remises and conclusions are> and reconstruct the arguments in the (orm o( an argument
ma. /he ans6ers 6ill %e ro'ided a(ter6ard. Mee in mind that there can %e legitimately di((erent
ans6ers gi'en that some interretation is reBuired.
Practice 1
I ha'e done a great deal o( 6orkK as much as a man> %ut did not get so much ay. I used to 6ork
in the (ield and %ind grain> keeing u 6ith the cradlerK %ut men doing no more> got t6ice as
much ayK so 6ith the German 6omen. /hey 6ork in the (ield and do as much 6ork> %ut do not
got the ay. We do as much> 6e eat as much> 6e 6ant as much. I suose I am a%out the only
**2
colored 6oman that goes a%out to seak (or the rights o( the colored 6omen. I 6ant to kee the
thing stirring> no6 that the ice is cracked. What 6e 6ant is a little money. Rou men kno6 that
you get as much again as 6omen 6hen you 6rite> or (or 6hat you do. When 6e get our rights
6e shall not ha'e to come to you (or money> (or then 6e shall ha'e money enough in our o6n
ocketsK and may %e you 6ill ask us (or money.
5
Practice 2
I+J 6oman should ha'e e'ery honora%le moti'e o( e.ertion 6hich is en4oyed %y man> to the
(ull e.tent o( her caacities and endo6ments. /he case is too lain (or argument. ?ature has
gi'en 6oman the same o6ers> and su%4ected her to the same earth> %reathes the same air>
su%sists on the same (ood> hysical> moral> mental> and siritual. 9he has> there(ore> an eBual
right 6ith man> in all e((orts to o%tain and maintain a er(ect e.istence.
5
Practice 3
I may here e.ress a general remark> 6hich the history o( sla'ery seems to 4usti(y> that it is not
(ounded solely on the a'arice o( the lanter. We sometimes say> the lanter does not 6ant
sla'es> he only 6ants the immunities and the lu.uries 6hich the sla'es yield himK gi'e him
money> gi'e him a machine that 6ill yield him as much money as the sla'es> and he 6ill
thank(ully let them go. &e has no lo'e o( sla'ery> he 6ants lu.ury> and he 6ill ay e'en this
rice o( crime and danger (or it. 8ut I think e.erience does not 6arrant this (a'ora%le
distinction> %ut sho6s the e.istence> %eside the co'etousness> o( a %itterer element> the lo'e o(
o6er> the 'olutuousness o( holding a human %eing in his a%solute control. We sometimes
o%ser'e that soiled children contract a ha%it o( annoying Buite 6antonly those 6ho ha'e charge
o( them> and seem to measure their o6n sense o( 6ellC%eing> not %y 6hat they do> %ut %y the
degree o( reaction they can cause. It is 'ain to get rid o( them %y not minding them: i( urring
and humming is not noticed> they sBueal and screechK then i( you chide and console them> they
(ind the e.eriment succeeds> and they %egin again. /he child 6ill sit in your arms contented>
ro'ided you do nothing. I( you take a %ook and read> he commences hostile oerations. /he
lanter is the soiled child o( his unnatural ha%its> and has contracted in his indolent and
lu.urious climate the need o( e.citement %y irritating and tormenting his sla'e.
!
Practice 3
+ll men recogniAe the right o( re'olutionK that is> the right to re(use allegiance to> and to resist>
the go'ernment> 6hen its tyranny or its ine((iciency are great and unendura%le. 8ut almost all
say that such is not the case no6. 8ut such 6as the case> they think> in the 7e'olution o( 2!5. I(
one 6ere to tell me that this 6as a %ad go'ernment %ecause it ta.ed certain (oreign commodities
%rought to its orts> it is most ro%a%le that I should not make an ado a%out it> (or I can do
5 9o4ourner /ruth. E+ddress to the @irst +nnual =eeting o( the +merican ;Bual 7ights +ssociation.F "?e6 Rork City> -
=ay 1)5!. 3C1(/edu. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.#
5 @rederick 1ouglass. E9ome /houghts 3n Woman2s 7ights.F .redrick Douglass" Paper. "10 June 1)5*. ;d. Philip S/
.oner"s .rederick Douglass 0n -omen"s Rights/ ?e6 Rork: 1e Cao Press> 1--2. Print.# 5).
! 7alh Waldo ;merson. E+ddress 3n ;manciation In the 8ritish West Indies.F 1)00. The -orks of Ralph -aldo
!merson& in 45 vols. @ireside ed. "8oston and ?e6 Rork> 1-0-. 0nline 1ibrary of 1iberty. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.#
***
6ithout them. +ll machines ha'e their (rictionK and ossi%ly this does enough good to counterC
%alance the e'il. +t any rate> it is a great e'il to make a stir a%out it. 8ut 6hen the (riction
comes to ha'e its machine> and oression and ro%%ery are organiAed> I say> let us not ha'e such
a machine any longer. In other 6ords> 6hen a si.th o( the oulation o( a nation 6hich has
undertaken to %e the re(uge o( li%erty are sla'es> and a 6hole country is un4ustly o'errun and
conBuered %y a (oreign army> and su%4ected to military la6> I think that it is not too soon (or
honest men to re%el and re'olutioniAe. What makes this duty the more urgent is that (act that the
country so o'errun is not our o6n> %ut ours is the in'ading army.
)
Practice 4
We hold these truths to %e sel(Ce'ident> that all men are created eBual> that they are endo6ed %y
their Creator 6ith certain unaliena%le 7ights> that among these are $i(e> $i%erty and the ursuit
o( &ainess. D /hat to secure these rights> Go'ernments are instituted among =en> deri'ing
their 4ust o6ers (rom the consent o( the go'erned> D /hat 6hene'er any @orm o( Go'ernment
%ecomes destructi'e o( these ends> it is the 7ight o( the Peole to alter or to a%olish it> and to
institute ne6 Go'ernment> laying its (oundation on such rinciles and organiAing its o6ers in
such (orm> as to them shall seem most likely to e((ect their 9a(ety and &ainess. Prudence>
indeed> 6ill dictate that Go'ernments long esta%lished should not %e changed (or light and
transient causesK and accordingly all e.erience hath she6n that mankind are more disosed to
su((er> 6hile e'ils are su((era%le than to right themsel'es %y a%olishing the (orms to 6hich they
are accustomed. 8ut 6hen a long train o( a%uses and usurations> ursuing in'aria%ly the same
3%4ect e'inces a design to reduce them under a%solute 1esotism> it is their right> it is their
duty> to thro6 o(( such Go'ernment> and to ro'ide ne6 Guards (or their (uture security. D
9uch has %een the atient su((erance o( these ColoniesK and such is no6 the necessity 6hich
constrains them to alter their (ormer 9ystems o( Go'ernment. /he history o( the resent Ming o(
Great 8ritain is a history o( reeated in4uries and usurations> all ha'ing in direct o%4ect the
esta%lishment o( an a%solute /yranny o'er these 9tates. /o ro'e this> let @acts %e su%mitted to a
candid 6orld...
We> there(ore> the 7eresentati'es o( the united 9tates o( +merica> in General Congress>
+ssem%led> aealing to the 9ureme Judge o( the 6orld (or the rectitude o( our intentions> do>
in the ?ame> and %y +uthority o( the good Peole o( these Colonies> solemnly u%lish and
declare> /hat these united Colonies are> and o( 7ight ought to %e @ree and Indeendent 9tates>
that they are +%sol'ed (rom all +llegiance to the 8ritish Cro6n> and that all olitical connection
%et6een them and the 9tate o( Great 8ritain> is and ought to %e totally dissol'edK and that as
@ree and Indeendent 9tates> they ha'e (ull Po6er to le'y War> conclude Peace> contract
+lliances> esta%lish Commerce> and to do all other +cts and /hings 6hich Indeendent 9tates
may o( right do. D +nd (or the suort o( this 1eclaration> 6ith a (irm reliance on the
rotection o( 1i'ine Pro'idence> 6e mutually ledge to each other our $i'es> our @ortunes> and
our sacred &onor.
-
) &enry 1a'id /horeau. ECi'il 1iso%edience.F "1)55. The .ree 1ibrary. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.#
- /homas Je((erson. E/he Lnanimous 1eclaration o( /he /hirteen Lnited 9tates o( +merica.F "1!!5. 3S,istory/org/ We%.
11 =ar. 2012.#
**0
Ans$ers
Practice 1
I ha'e done a great deal o( 6orkK as much as a man> %ut did not get so much ay. I used
to 6ork in the (ield and %ind grain> keeing u 6ith the cradlerK %ut men doing no more>
got t6ice as much ayK so 6ith the German 6omen. /hey 6ork in the (ield and do as
much 6ork> %ut do not got the ay. We do as much> 6e eat as much> 6e 6ant as much. I
suose I am a%out the only colored 6oman that goes a%out to seak (or the rights o( the
colored 6omen. I 6ant to kee the thing stirring> no6 that the ice is cracked. What 6e
6ant is a little money. Rou men kno6 that you get as much again as 6omen 6hen you
6rite> or (or 6hat you do. When 6e get our rights 6e shall not ha'e to come to you (or
money> (or then 6e shall ha'e money enough in our o6n ocketsK and may %e you 6ill
ask us (or money.
10
/he remise and conclusion are the (ollo6ing:
1. ?ot all 6omen 6ork less> eat less> or 6ant less than men. "remise#
2. /here(ore> there is no reason to ay all 6omen less than men. "conclusion#
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
10 /ruth.
**5
Practice 2
I+J 6oman should ha'e e'ery honora%le moti'e o( e.ertion 6hich is en4oyed %y man> to
the (ull e.tent o( her caacities and endo6ments. /he case is too lain (or argument.
?ature has gi'en 6oman the same o6ers> and su%4ected her to the same earth> %reathes
the same air> su%sists on the same (ood> hysical> moral> mental> and siritual. 9he has>
there(ore> an eBual right 6ith man> in all e((orts to o%tain and maintain a er(ect
e.istence.
11
/he remise and conclusion are the (ollo6ing:
1. Women ha'e eBual caacities and endo6ments as men. "remise#
2. /here(ore> 6omen should ha'e eBual rights 6ith men. "conclusion#
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
Practice 3
I may here e.ress a general remark> 6hich the history o( sla'ery seems to 4usti(y> that it
is not (ounded solely on the a'arice o( the lanter. We sometimes say> the lanter does
not 6ant sla'es> he only 6ants the immunities and the lu.uries 6hich the sla'es yield
himK gi'e him money> gi'e him a machine that 6ill yield him as much money as the
sla'es> and he 6ill thank(ully let them go. &e has no lo'e o( sla'ery> he 6ants lu.ury>
and he 6ill ay e'en this rice o( crime and danger (or it. 8ut I think e.erience does
11 E9ome /houghts.F 5).
**5
not 6arrant this (a'ora%le distinction> %ut sho6s the e.istence> %eside the co'etousness>
o( a %itterer element> the lo'e o( o6er> the 'olutuousness o( holding a human %eing in
his a%solute control. We sometimes o%ser'e that soiled children contract a ha%it o(
annoying Buite 6antonly those 6ho ha'e charge o( them> and seem to measure their o6n
sense o( 6ellC%eing> not %y 6hat they do> %ut %y the degree o( reaction they can cause. It
is 'ain to get rid o( them %y not minding them: i( urring and humming is not noticed>
they sBueal and screechK then i( you chide and console them> they (ind the e.eriment
succeeds> and they %egin again. /he child 6ill sit in your arms contented> ro'ided you
do nothing. I( you take a %ook and read> he commences hostile oerations. /he lanter is
the soiled child o( his unnatural ha%its> and has contracted in his indolent and lu.urious
climate the need o( e.citement %y irritating and tormenting his sla'e.
12
/he remises and conclusion are the (ollo6ing:
1. Children en4oy tormenting eole. "remise#
2. =any sla'es are tormented %y their sla'e o6ners. "remise#
*. /here(ore> it seems likely that many sla'e o6ners en4oy tormenting their sla'es. "conclusion#
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
Practice 3
+ll men recogniAe the right o( re'olutionK that is> the right to re(use allegiance to> and to
resist> the go'ernment> 6hen its tyranny or its ine((iciency are great and unendura%le.
8ut almost all say that such is not the case no6. 8ut such 6as the case> they think> in the
12 ;merson.
**!
7e'olution o( 2!5. I( one 6ere to tell me that this 6as a %ad go'ernment %ecause it ta.ed
certain (oreign commodities %rought to its orts> it is most ro%a%le that I should not
make an ado a%out it> (or I can do 6ithout them. +ll machines ha'e their (rictionK and
ossi%ly this does enough good to counterC%alance the e'il. +t any rate> it is a great e'il
to make a stir a%out it. 8ut 6hen the (riction comes to ha'e its machine> and oression
and ro%%ery are organiAed> I say> let us not ha'e such a machine any longer. In other
6ords> 6hen a si.th o( the oulation o( a nation 6hich has undertaken to %e the re(uge
o( li%erty are sla'es> and a 6hole country is un4ustly o'errun and conBuered %y a (oreign
army> and su%4ected to military la6> I think that it is not too soon (or honest men to re%el
and re'olutioniAe. What makes this duty the more urgent is that (act that the country so
o'errun is not our o6n> %ut ours is the in'ading army.
1*
/he remises and conclusion o( the argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. We ha'e a right to resist our go'ernment 6hen it ta.es us (or %ringing us (oreign commodities.
"remise#
2. I( 6e ha'e a right to resist our go'ernment 6hen it ta.es us (or %ringing us (oreign
commoditiesK then 6e also ha'e a right to resist our go'ernment 6hen a si.th o( the oulation
o( our nation are sla'es> a (oreign country is un4ustly conBuered %y our army> and 6e are
su%4ected to military la6. "remise#
*. + si.th o( the oulation o( our nation are sla'es> a (oreign country is un4ustly conBuered %y our
army> and 6e are su%4ected to military la6. "remise#
0. /here(ore> it is (alse that 6e don2t currently ha'e a right to resist the go'ernment. "conclusion#
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
1* /horeau.
**)
Practice 4
We hold these truths to %e sel(Ce'ident> that all men are created eBual> that they are
endo6ed %y their Creator 6ith certain unaliena%le 7ights> that among these are $i(e>
$i%erty and the ursuit o( &ainess.D/hat to secure these rights> Go'ernments are
instituted among =en> deri'ing their 4ust o6ers (rom the consent o( the go'erned>D
/hat 6hene'er any @orm o( Go'ernment %ecomes destructi'e o( these ends> it is the
7ight o( the Peole to alter or to a%olish it> and to institute ne6 Go'ernment> laying its
(oundation on such rinciles and organiAing its o6ers in such (orm> as to them shall
seem most likely to e((ect their 9a(ety and &ainess. Prudence> indeed> 6ill dictate that
Go'ernments long esta%lished should not %e changed (or light and transient causesK and
accordingly all e.erience hath she6n that mankind are more disosed to su((er> 6hile
e'ils are su((era%le than to right themsel'es %y a%olishing the (orms to 6hich they are
accustomed. 8ut 6hen a long train o( a%uses and usurations> ursuing in'aria%ly the
same 3%4ect e'inces a design to reduce them under a%solute 1esotism> it is their right>
it is their duty> to thro6 o(( such Go'ernment> and to ro'ide ne6 Guards (or their (uture
security.D9uch has %een the atient su((erance o( these ColoniesK and such is no6 the
necessity 6hich constrains them to alter their (ormer 9ystems o( Go'ernment. /he
history o( the resent Ming o( Great 8ritain is a history o( reeated in4uries and
usurations> all ha'ing in direct o%4ect the esta%lishment o( an a%solute /yranny o'er
these 9tates. /o ro'e this> let @acts %e su%mitted to a candid 6orld...
**-
We> there(ore> the 7eresentati'es o( the united 9tates o( +merica> in General Congress>
+ssem%led> aealing to the 9ureme Judge o( the 6orld (or the rectitude o( our
intentions> do> in the ?ame> and %y +uthority o( the good Peole o( these Colonies>
solemnly u%lish and declare> /hat these united Colonies are> and o( 7ight ought to %e
@ree and Indeendent 9tates> that they are +%sol'ed (rom all +llegiance to the 8ritish
Cro6n> and that all olitical connection %et6een them and the 9tate o( Great 8ritain> is
and ought to %e totally dissol'edK and that as @ree and Indeendent 9tates> they ha'e (ull
Po6er to le'y War> conclude Peace> contract +lliances> esta%lish Commerce> and to do
all other +cts and /hings 6hich Indeendent 9tates may o( right do.D+nd (or the
suort o( this 1eclaration> 6ith a (irm reliance on the rotection o( 1i'ine Pro'idence>
6e mutually ledge to each other our $i'es> our @ortunes> and our sacred &onor.
10
/he remises and conclusions o( the argument are the (ollo6ing:
1. Go'ernments deri'e their o6er (rom the consent o( the eole to rotect our interests in li(e>
li%erty> and the ursuit o( hainess. "remise#
2. I( a go'ernment %ecomes destructi'e to li(e> li%erty> and the ursuit o( hainessK then eole
ha'e a right to %reak (ree (rom that go'ernment. "remise#
*. /he Ming o( Great 8ritain has o6er o'er the Lnited 9tates and it has %ecome destructi'e to the
li(e> li%erty> and ursuit o( hainess o( those li'ing in the Lnited 9tates. "remise#
0. /here(ore> eole o( the Lnited 9tates ha'e a right to %reak (ree o( the 8ritish go'ernment.
"conclusion#
10 Je((erson.
*00
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
*01
Chapter 2+: 5inding hidden assumptions
It is unusual (or eole to e.licitly lay out their entire argument 6ithout any unstated remises "i.e.
hidden assumtions#> and almost every argument re)uires at least two premises. ;'en so> it is 'ery
imortant that 6e kno6 6hat those remises are to roerly understand 'arious arguments.
Example o" a )idden assumption
+n argument 6ith a hidden assumtion is the (ollo6ingDThe death penalty is wrong because it"s
wrong to hurt people. /he argument that2s 6ritten here only states one remise and one conclusion:
(rgument 4
1. It2s 6rong to hurt eole.
2. /here(ore> the death enalty is 6rong.
/his argument (orm is in'alid. "/he (orm is E+> there(ore 8.F# /he ro%lem is that it2s not clear ho6 the
remise and conclusion are connectedD9hould 6e agree that Ei( it2s 6rong to hurt eole> then the
death enalty is 6rong,F Perhas the death enalty doesn2t hurt anyone.
In order (or an argument to %e 'alid it has to %e imossi%le (or the argument (orm to %e used 6ith true
remises and a (alse conclusion> and that2s not the case here. +nother argument that uses the same (orm
6ith a true remise and (alse conclusion is the (ollo6ingDCharity is wrong because it"s wrong to
indiscriminately kill people.
/he hidden assumtion here is Ei( it2s 6rong to hurt eole> then the death enalty is 6rong.F /he
hidden remise should %e added to the argument:
(rgument 5
1. It2s 6rong to hurt eole.
2. I( it2s 6rong to hurt eole> then the death enalty is 6rong.
*. /here(ore> the death enalty is 6rong.
$o tips to "inding )idden assumptions1
1. )e conclusion s)ouldn0t mention any terms t)at aren0t mentioned in a premise1 6 /he
conclusion o( (rgument 4 mentions the death penalty in the conclusion> %ut it doesn2t mention
the death penalty in the remise. Rou can2t ro'e anything a%out the death enalty 6ithout a
remise that mentions it. /he hidden remise must say something a%out the death enalty. "/his
is also kno6n as the Era%%it ruleF re(erring to the idea that you can2t ull a ra%%it out o( a hat.#
2. Arguments o"ten re,uire i"Dt)en statements1 Q =any arguments 6ith hidden assumtions use
the argument (orm kno6n as Emodus ponensF "Ei( +> then 8K +K there(ore 8F#. Rou can o(ten
identi(y the hidden assumtion %y identi(ying 6hich o( these t6o remises is missing.
+rgument 1 had the remise E+F %ut it 6as missing the remise Ei( +> then 8.F
*02
<o$ to make use o" ?modus ponens@ to "ind )idden premises1
@inally> consider the argument Ei( 9ocrates is a man> then he is a mammalK there(ore he is a mammal.F
/he remise is Ei( 9ocrates is a man> then he is a mammalF and the conclusion is Ethere(ore> he is a
mammal.F /his argument does not 'iolate the ra%%it rule %ecause the remise contains %oth terms
(ound in the conclusion. ;'en so> 6e can realiAe 6hat remise is missing %ased on the (act that the
argument can use the argument (orm o( Emodus ponens.F 9o (ar the argument uses the (orm Ei( +> then
8K there(ore> 8.F "E+F is E9ocrates is a manF and E8F is E9ocrates is a mammal.F# /he remise uses the
(orm Ei( +> then 8>F so the hidden assumtion can %e E+F "E9ocrates is a manF#. 3nce 6e add the
hidden remise> the argument %ecomes the (ollo6ing:
1. I( 9ocrates is a man> then he is a mammal.
2. 9ocrates is a man.
*. /here(ore> 9ocrates is a mammal.
("8.1 6(amples of finding hidden assumptions
/his section resents three assages o( historical imortance> it identi(ies the remises and conclusions>
and it e.lains ho6 6e can (ind the hidden assumtions. Mee in mind that (inding hidden assumtions
reBuires us to attemt to understand the assumtions o( the erson making an argument> and it2s not
al6ays o%'ious 6hat e.actly those are. /hat means that there are sometimes multile legitimate 'ie6s
concerning 6hat e.actly the hidden assumtions are.
Passage 1
I/Jhe care o( souls cannot %elong to the ci'il magistrate> %ecause his o6er consists only
in out6ard (orceK %ut true and sa'ing religion consists in the in6ard ersuasion o( the
mind> 6ithout 6hich nothing can %e acceta%le to God. +nd such is the nature o( the
understanding> that it cannot %e comelled to the %elie( o( anything %y out6ard (orce.
Con(iscation o( estate> imrisonment> torments> nothing o( that nature can ha'e any such
e((icacy as to make men change the in6ard 4udgement that they ha'e (ramed o( things.
15
&ere John $ocke argues that the Eci'il magistrateF "i.e. go'ernment# should not %e concerned 6ith Ethe
care o( soulsF "i.e. eole2s religious %elie(s# %ecause the go'ernment can use (orce> %ut religious
%elie(s should %e in(luenced though in6ard ersuasion o( the mind "i.e. arguments#. Persuasion
in'ol'ing (orce "e.g. con(iscation o( 6ealth> imrisonment> and torments# 6ould not %e caa%le o(
gi'ing us a genuine religious %elie(.
/he remises and conclusion o( the argument can %e listed as the (ollo6ing:
1. Go'ernments can only ersuade us %y using (orce. "remise#
2. @orce can2t cause genuine religious %elie(s. "remise#
15 John $ocke. E+ $etter Concerning /oleration.F "15)-. /rans. 8y William Pole. Constitution/org. We%. 11 =ar.
2012.#
*0*
*. Genuine religious %elie(s are only caused %y arguments. "remise#
0. /here(ore> go'ernments shouldn2t %e concerned 6ith our religious %elie(s. "conclusion#
/his argument is incomlete %ecause the remises aren2t su((icient to ro'e the conclusion. /hey don2t
say anything a%out 6hat the go'ernment should or should not %e concerned 6ith. It is not entirely clear
6hat the hidden assumtion is> %ut it could %e that Ego'ernments shouldn2t %e concerned 6ith religious
%elie(s unless they can cause genuine religious %elie(s.F /his remise seems charita%le to $ocke2s
reasoning %ecause there2s nothing 'ery o((ensi'e a%out it. It seems innocent enough. We can then
re6rite the argument 6ith the hidden assumtion as the (ollo6ing:
1. Go'ernments can only ersuade us %y using (orce. "remise#
2. @orce can2t cause genuine religious %elie(s. "remise#
7/ 8overnments shouldn"t be concerned with religious beliefs unless they can cause genuine
religious beliefs/ 9hidden premise:
0. Genuine religious %elie(s are only caused %y arguments. "remise#
5. /here(ore> go'ernments shouldn2t %e concerned 6ith our religious %elie(s. "conclusion#
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
Passage 2
I ha'e heard it asserted %y some> that as +merica hath (lourished under her (ormer
connection 6ith Great 8ritain that the same connection is necessary to6ards her (uture
hainess> and 6ill al6ays ha'e the same e((ect. ?othing can %e more (allacious than
this kind o( argument. We may as 6ell assert that %ecause a child has thri'ed uon milk
that it is ne'er to ha'e meat> or that the (irst t6enty years o( our li'es is to %ecome a
*00
recedent (or the ne.t t6enty. 8ut e'en this is admitting more than is true> (or I ans6er
roundly> that +merica 6ould ha'e (lourished as much> and ro%a%ly much more> had no
;uroean o6er had any thing to do 6ith her. /he commerce> %y 6hich she hath
enriched hersel(> are the necessaries o( li(e> and 6ill al6ays ha'e a market 6hile eating
is the custom o( ;uroe.
15
/his assage %y /homas Paine resents 'arious o%4ections to an argument. /he argument that is %eing
re4ected is that +merica can only (lourish i( it2s dominated %y Great 8ritain %ecause it (lourished under
Great 8ritain in the ast. We can 6rite this argument as the (ollo6ing:
1. +merica (lourished %ecause it 6as dominated %y Great 8ritain in the ast. "remise#
2. /here(ore> +merica can only (lourish i( it2s dominated %y Great 8ritain. "conclusion#
We kno6 that this argument is incomlete> so it2s missing a remise. /he (act that +merica (lourished
under Great 8ritain in the ast does not ro'e that +merica can only (lourish i( it2s dominated %y Great
8ritain.
/he missing remise can %e (ound %y realiAing that this argument can use modus ponens "i.e. +K i( +>
then 8K there(ore> 8.# 9o (ar the argument (orm is E+K there(ore> 8.F /he missing remise is Ei( +> then
8.F
E+F is E+merica (lourished under Great 8ritain in the astF and E8F is E+merica can only (lourish i(
it2s dominated %y Great 8ritain.F /here(ore> the missing remise is Ei( +merica (lourished under Great
8ritain in the ast> then +merica can only (lourish 6hen it2s dominated %y Great 8ritain.F
We can no6 re6rite the argument 6ith the missing remise as the (ollo6ing:
1. +merica (lourished %ecause it 6as dominated %y Great 8ritain in the ast. "remise#
5/ If (merica flourished under 8reat ;ritain in the past& then (merica can only flourish when it"s
dominated by 8reat ;ritain/ 9hidden assumption:
*. /here(ore> +merica can only (lourish i( it2s dominated %y Great 8ritain. "conclusion#
/homas Paine then gi'es us three o%4ections against this (irst argument:
/he (irst t6o o%4ections are almost the same. @irst> he argues that the reasoning o( the (irst argument is
(allacious %ecause it 6ould imly that children (lourish (rom drinking milk rather than eating meat> so
eole should al6ays drink milk and ne'er eat meat. 9econd> he argues that the reasoning o( the (irst
argument is (allacious %ecause it 6ould imly that the (irst t6enty years o( our li'es tells us e'erything
6e need to kno6 a%out ho6 to (lourish in the (uture.
/he (allacious reasoning he has in mind to re(ute here is that 6hate'er causes (lourishing in the ast
6ill cause (lourishing in the (uture. /he assumtion is that the (irst argument2s missing remiseDIf
(merica flourished because it was dominated by 8reat ;ritain in the past& then (merica can only
flourish if it"s dominated by 8reat ;ritainDcan only %e 4usti(ied i( 6e assume that E6hate'er causes
15 /homas Paine. ECommon 9ense.F "1!!5. Pro'ect 8utenberg. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.#
*05
(lourishing in the ast 6ill cause (lourishing in the (uture.F /he t6o arguments are o%4ections to that
remise %ecause they are countere.amles. I( the remise 6ere true> then it 6ould %e %est (or adults to
drink milk rather than eat meat and it 6ould %e true that the (irst t6enty years o( our li'es 6ould tell us
e'erything 6e need to kno6 a%out (lourishing in the (uture. &o6e'er> "resuma%ly# adults can eat meat
and the (irst t6enty years o( our li'es doesn2t tell us e'erything a%out ho6 to (lourish in the (uture.
We can no6 list the remises and conclusion o( Paine2s (irst o%4ection as the (ollo6ing:
4/ The only reason to believe that <if (merica flourished under 8reat ;ritain in the past& then
(merica can only flourish if it"s dominated by 8reat ;ritain= is if what caused flourishing in
the past will cause flourishing in the future/ 9hidden assumption:
5/ If whatever caused flourishing in the past will cause flourishing in the future& then adults
shouldn"t eat meat/ 9hidden assumption:
*. It is (alse that adults shouldn2t eat meat. "remise#
0. /here(ore> it is (alse that 6hate'er causes (lourishing in the ast 6ill cause (lourishing in the
(uture. "conclusion#
+nd the remises and conclusion o( Paine2s second o%4ection are the (ollo6ing:
4/ The only reason to believe that <if (merica flourished under 8reat ;ritain in the past& then
(merica can only flourish if it"s dominated by 8reat ;ritain= is if what causes flourishing in the
past will cause flourishing in the future/ 9hidden assumption:
5/ If whatever causes flourishing in the past will cause flourishing in the future& then the first
twenty years of our lives will tell us everything we need to know about how to flourish in the
future/ 9hidden assumption:
*. It is (alse that the (irst t6enty years o( our li'es 6ill tell us e'erything 6e need to kno6 a%out
ho6 to (lourish in the (uture. "remise#
0. /here(ore> it is (alse that 6hate'er causes (lourishing in the ast 6ill cause (lourishing in the
(uture. "conclusion#
/hird> Paine argues that +merica has rosered %ecause o( commerce dealing 6ith the necessities o(
li(e rather than %y %eing dominated %y Great 8ritain> so +merica 6ould ha'e (lourished as much i( not
more 6ithout the domination o( Great 8ritain. We should there(ore re4ect the %elie( that +merica only
(lourished %ecause it 6as dominated %y Great 8ritain. /his argument o%4ects to the remise that
E+merica (lourished %ecause it 6as dominated %y Great 8ritain in the ast.F /he remise and
conclusion o( this argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. +merica has rosered %ecause o( commerce dealing 6ith the necessities o( li(e rather than %y
%eing dominated %y Great 8ritain. "remise#
2. /here(ore> it is (alse that +merica (lourished in the ast %ecause o( %eing dominated %y Great
8ritain. "conclusion#
+gain> 6e kno6 that there2s a hidden assumtion %ecause the remise does not ro'e the conclusion to
%e true %y itsel(. +nd once more 6e can use modus ponens to (ind the missing remise. + is E+merica
has rosered %ecause o( commerce dealing 6ith the necessities o( li(e rather than %y %eing dominated
%y Great 8ritainF and 8 is Eit is (alse that +merica (lourished in the ast %ecause o( the domination o(
*05
Great 8ritain.F /he hidden assumtion uses the (orm Ei( +> then 8>F so it is Ei( +merica has rosered
%ecause o( commerce dealing 6ith the necessities o( li(e rather than %y %eing dominated %y Great
8ritain> then it is (alse that +merica (lourished in the ast %ecause o( the domination o( Great 8ritain.F
We can no6 6rite the argument 6ith the hidden assumtion as the (ollo6ing:
1. +merica has rosered %ecause o( commerce dealing 6ith the necessities o( li(e rather than %y
%eing dominated %y Great 8ritain. "remise#
5/ If (merica has prospered because of commerce dealing with the necessities of life rather than
by being dominated by 8reat ;ritain& then it is false that (merica flourished in the past because
of the domination of 8reat ;ritain/ 9hidden assumption:
*. /here(ore> it is (alse that +merica (lourished in the ast %ecause o( the domination o( Great
8ritain. "conclusion#
When making an argument ma (or this assage> 6e need to kee in mind ho6 e.actly the o%4ections
relate to the (irst argument "and the 4usti(ication gi'en (or it#.
/he argument ma (or the assage is the (ollo6ing:
*0!
*0)
Passage 3
We argued> as 6e thought then rather logically> that no social class 6as so good> so true>
and so disinterested as to %e trusted 6holly 6ith the olitical destiny o( its neigh%orsK
that in e'ery state the %est ar%iters o( their o6n 6el(are are the ersons directly a((ectedK
conseBuently that it is only %y arming e'ery hand 6ith a %allot>D6ith the right to ha'e a
'oice in the olicy o( the state>Dthat the greatest good to the greatest num%er could %e
attained. /o %e sure> there 6ere o%4ections to these arguments> %ut 6e thought 6e had
ans6ered them tersely and con'incinglyK i( some one comlained o( the ignorance o(
'oters> 6e ans6ered> E;ducate them.F I( another comlained o( their 'enality> 6e
relied> E1is(ranchise them or ut them in 4ail.F +nd> (inally> to the men 6ho (eared
demagogues and the natural er'ersity o( some human %eings 6e insisted that time and
%itter e.erience 6ould teach the most hardheaded. It 6as at this time that the Buestion
o( ?egro su((rage in the 9outh 6as raised. &ere 6as a de(enceless eole suddenly made
(ree. &o6 6ere they to %e rotected (rom those 6ho did not %elie'e in their (reedom and
6ere determined to th6art it, ?ot %y (orce> said the ?orthK not %y go'ernment
guardianshi> said the 9outhK then %y the %allot> the sole and legitimate de(ence o( a (ree
eole> said the Common 9ense o( the ?ation. ?o one thought> at the time> that the e.C
sla'es could use the %allot intelligently or 'ery e((ecti'elyK %ut they did think that the
ossession o( so great o6er %y a great class in the nation 6ould comel their (ello6s to
educate this class to its intelligent use.
1!
/here are si. ma4or arguments contained in this assage %y W. ;. 8. 1u8ois.
/he (irst argument states that social grous need a right to 'ote %ecause no one social grou can %e
trusted to look out (or the 6el(are o( other social grous and 6e kno6 ho6 to look out (or our o6n
social grou2s 6el(are %est. /he remises and conclusion o( the (irst argument are the (ollo6ing:
1. We can2t trust any grou other than our o6n to look out (or our grou2s 6el(are. "remise#
2. We kno6 ho6 to %est look out (or our grou2s 6el(are. "remise#
*. /here(ore> e'ery social grou needs a right to 'ote. "conclusion#
/his argument is missing a remise. We kno6 that %ecause o( the ra%%it ruleDremises must contain
all the terms mentioned in the conclusion. In this case voting is not mentioned in either remise> %ut it2s
mentioned in the conclusion. /his argument can use Emodus ponensF in order to hel us (ind the hidden
assumtion. We can treat %oth remises as + and the conclusion as 8. /he missing remise is then Ei(
+> then 8F or EI( 6e can2t trust any grou other than our o6n to look out (or our 6el(are and 6e kno6
ho6 to %est look out (or our grou2s 6el(are> then e'ery social grou needs a right to 'ote.F We can
re6rite the argument 6ith the hidden assumtion as the (ollo6ing:
1! W. ;.8. 1u8ois The Souls of ;lack .olk/ "1-0*. Pro'ect 8utenberg. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.# Chater IW.
*0-
1. We can2t trust any grou other than our o6n to look out (or our grou2s 6el(are.
2. We kno6 ho6 to %est look out (or our grou2s 6el(are. "remise#
7/ If we can"t trust any group other than our own to look out for our welfare and we know how to
best look out for our group"s welfare& then every social group needs a right to vote/ 9hidden
assumption:
0. /here(ore> e'ery social grou needs a right to 'ote. "conclusion#
/he second and third arguments are %oth o%4ections to the %elie( that every social group should have
voting rights. /he (irst o%4ection is that some people are ignorant and the second o%4ection is that some
people suffer from venality "corrution#. /he conclusion o( %oth these arguments is that we should
re'ect that all social groups should have a right to vote. 8oth these o%4ections are missing remises. We
kno6 this %ecause o( the ra%%it rule. ?either remise mentions E'oting>F %ut the conclusions do. We
can comlete %oth o%4ections and (ind the hidden assumtions %y realiAing that they can %oth use
Emodus ponens.F /he missing remise in %oth cases can %e Ei( +> then 8.F /he (irst o%4ection is
there(ore missing the remise that states Ei( some eole are ignorant> then some social grous
shouldn2t ha'e a right to 'oteF and the second o%4ection is there(ore missing the remise that states Ei(
some eole are 'enal> then some social grous shouldn2t ha'e a right to 'ote.F
We can then re6rite %oth the o%4ections as the (ollo6ing:
3%4ection 1
1. 9ome eole are ignorant. "remise#
5/ If some people are ignorant& then some social groups shouldn"t have a right to vote/ 9hidden
assumption:
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect that all social grous should ha'e a right to 'ote. "conclusion#
3%4ection 2
1. 9ome eole are 'enal. "remise#
5/ If some people are venal& then some social groups shouldn"t have a right to vote/ 9hidden
assumption:
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect that all social grous should ha'e a right to 'ote. "conclusion#
1e8ois then criticiAes these o%4ections 6ith t6o more arguments. 3ne> he argues that we can educate
people> so 6e should re4ect the remise that %eing ignorant is a good reason to take 'oting rights (rom a
social grou. /6o> he argues that we could put venal people in 'ail or disenfranchise them> so 6e
should re4ect the remise that %eing 'enal is a good reason to take 'oting rights (rom a social grou.
?either criticism e.licitly lays out the o%4ection and they are %oth missing a remise. /he (irst
argument is against the remise that Ei( some eole are ignorant> then some social grous shouldn2t
ha'e a right to 'oteF and the second argument is against the remise that Ei( some eole are 'enal>
then not all social grous should ha'e the right to 'ote.F 8oth remises can %e (ound once 6e realiAe
that they can use Emodus ponens.F 8oth missing remises can use the (orm Ei( +> then 8.F /here(ore>
the missing remise o( the (irst criticism can %e Ei( 6e can educate eole> then 6e should re4ect that 2if
some people are ignorant& then some social groups shouldn"t have a right to vote/2F /he missing
*50
remise o( the second criticism is Ei( 6e can arrest or dis(ranchise eole (or %eing 'enal> then 6e
should re4ect that 2if some people are venal& then not all social groups should have the right to vote.2F
/he remises and conclusion o( the criticisms are the (ollo6ing:
Criticism 1
1. We can educate eole. "remise#
2. If we can educate people& then we should re'ect that Eif some people are ignorant& then some
social groups shouldn"t have a right to vote/= 9hidden assumption:
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect that i( some eole are ignorant> then some social grous shouldn2t
ha'e a right to 'ote. "conclusion#
Criticism 2
1. We can imrison or disen(ranchise eole 6ho are 'enal. "remise#
5/ If we can arrest or disfranchise people for being venal& then we should re'ect that <if some
people are venal& then not all social groups should have the right to vote/= 9hidden assumption:
*. /here(ore> 6e should re4ect that i( some eole are 'enal> then some social grous shouldn2t
ha'e a right to 'ote. "conclusion#
/he si.th argument concerns ho6 the 6el(are o( %lack eole should %e rotected. 1u8ois tells us that
the ?orth re(uses to rotect the 6el(are o( %lack eole 6ith (orce and the 9outh re(uses to rotect the
6el(are o( %lack eole 6ith go'ernment guardianshi. 1u8ois concludes that 6e should rotect their
6el(are %y gi'ing them 'oting rights.
/he remises and conclusion o( the si.th argument are the (ollo6ing:
1. /he 6el(are o( %lack eole should %e rotected. "remise#
2. /he ?orth 6on2t rotect the 6el(are 6ith o( %lack eole 6ith (orce. "remise#
*. /he 9outh 6on2t rotect the 6el(are o( %lack eole through go'ernment guardianshi.
"remise#
0. /here(ore> %lack eole should ha'e 'oting rights. "conclusion#
&o6e'er> 6e should notice that this argument is missing a remise. /he remises are not su((icient to
ro'e the conclusion to %e true. 3ne 6ay 6e can realiAe this is %ecause o( the ra%%it ruleDthe
conclusion mentions a term "'oting rights# that aren2t mentioned in the remises. 3ne otion here is to
use a remise containing EorFDWe should either rotect the 6el(are o( %lack eole %y gi'ing them
'oting rights> or through (orce> or though go'ernment guardianshi. /he argument 6ith the missing
remise no6 looks like the (ollo6ing:
1. /he 6el(are o( %lack eole should %e rotected. "remise#
5/ ;lack people should have voting rights& or the >orth should protect them through force& or the
South should protect them though government guardianship/ 9hidden assumption:
*. /he ?orth 6on2t rotect the 6el(are 6ith o( %lack eole 6ith (orce. "remise#
0. /he 9outh 6on2t rotect the 6el(are o( %lack eole through go'ernment guardianshi.
*51
"remise#
5. /here(ore> %lack eole should ha'e 'oting rights. "conclusion#
/he argument ma (or the assage is the (ollo6ing:
*52
*5*
("8." Practice finding hidden assumptions
/his section contains (i'e historical assages containing arguments. Rou can then (igure out 6hat the
remises> conclusions> and hidden assumtions areK and reconstruct the arguments in the (orm o( an
argument ma. Mee in mind that there can %e some legitimately di((erent ans6ers gi'en that some
interretation is reBuired. /he ans6ers are resented a(ter6ard.
Passage 1
What is the secies o( domestic industry 6hich his caital can emloy> and o( 6hich the
roduce is likely to %e o( the greatest 'alue> e'ery indi'idual> it is e'ident> can> in his local
situation> 4udge much %etter than any statesman or la6gi'er can do (or him. /he statesman 6ho
should attemt to direct ri'ate eole in 6hat manner they ought to emloy their caitals
6ould not only load himsel( 6ith a most unnecessary attention> %ut assume an authority 6hich
could sa(ely %e trusted> not only to no single erson> %ut to no council or senate 6hate'er> and
6hich 6ould no6here %e so dangerous as in the hands o( a man 6ho had (olly and resumtion
enough to (ancy himsel( (it to e.ercise it.
1)
Passage 2
1id e'er man> =eletus> %elie'e in the e.istence o( human things> and not o( human %eings,
...1id e'er any man %elie'e in horsemanshi> and not in horses, or in (luteClaying> and not in
(luteClayers, ?o> my (riendK I 6ill ans6er to you and to the court> as you re(use to ans6er (or
yoursel(. /here is no man 6ho e'er did. 8ut no6 lease to ans6er the ne.t Buestion: Can a man
%elie'e in siritual and di'ine agencies> and not in sirits or demigods,
1-
Passage 3
@riends and (ello6 citiAens: I stand %e(ore you tonight under indictment (or the alleged crime o(
ha'ing 'oted at the last residential election> 6ithout ha'ing a la6(ul right to 'ote. It shall %e
my 6ork this e'ening to ro'e to you that in thus 'oting> I not only committed no crime> %ut>
instead> simly e.ercised my citiAen2s rights> guaranteed to me and all Lnited 9tates citiAens %y
the ?ational Constitution> %eyond the o6er o( any state to deny.
/he ream%le o( the @ederal Constitution says:
YWe> the eole o( the Lnited 9tates> in order to (orm a more er(ect union> esta%lish 4ustice>
insure domestic tranBuillity> ro'ide (or the common de(ense> romote the general 6el(are> and
secure the %lessings o( li%erty to oursel'es and our osterity> do ordain and esta%lish this
Constitution (or the Lnited 9tates o( +merica.Y
It 6as 6e> the eoleK not 6e> the 6hite male citiAensK nor yet 6e> the male citiAensK %ut 6e> the
1) 9mith> +dam. (n In)uiry into the >ature and Causes of the -ealth of >ations. "1!!5. ;d. 9Zl'io =. 9oares. 2eta1ibri
Digital 1ibrary. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.# *50.
1- Plato. E+ology.F "02! 8C;. Pro'ect 8utenberg. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.# 25eC2!c.
*50
6hole eole> 6ho (ormed the Lnion. +nd 6e (ormed it> not to gi'e the %lessings o( li%erty> %ut
to secure themK not to the hal( o( oursel'es and the hal( o( our osterity> %ut to the 6hole eole
D6omen as 6ell as men. +nd it is a do6nright mockery to talk to 6omen o( their en4oyment o(
the %lessings o( li%erty 6hile they are denied the use o( the only means o( securing them
ro'ided %y this democraticCreu%lican go'ernmentDthe %allot.
20
Passage 3
We must> ho6e'er> not only descri%e 'irtue as a state o( character> %ut also say 6hat sort o( state
it is. We may remark> then> that e'ery 'irtue or e.cellence %oth %rings into good condition the
thing o( 6hich it is the e.cellence and makes the 6ork o( that thing %e done 6ellK e.g. the
e.cellence o( the eye makes %oth the eye and its 6ork goodK (or it is %y the e.cellence o( the eye
that 6e see 6ell. 9imilarly the e.cellence o( the horse makes a horse %oth good in itsel( and
good at running and at carrying its rider and at a6aiting the attack o( the enemy. /here(ore> i(
this is true in e'ery case> the 'irtue o( man also 6ill %e the state o( character 6hich makes a man
good and 6hich makes him do his o6n 6ork 6ell.
21
Passage 4
I&Jo6 can there %e any 2%e(ore2 and 2a(ter2 6ithout the e.istence o( time, 3r ho6 can there %e
any time 6ithout the e.istence o( motion, I(> then> time Iis needed to Buanti(y motionJ or itsel(
a kind o( motion> it (ollo6s that> i( there is al6ays time> motion must also %e eternal. 8ut so (ar
as time is concerned 6e see that all 6ith one e.cetion are in agreement in saying that it is
uncreated: in (act> it is 4ust this that ena%les 1emocritus to sho6 that all things cannot ha'e had
a %ecoming: (or time> he says> is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation o( time> saying that
it had a %ecoming together 6ith the uni'erse> the uni'erse according to him ha'ing had a
%ecoming. ?o6 since time cannot e.ist and is unthinka%le aart (rom the moment> and the
moment a kind o( middleCoint> uniting as it does in itsel( %oth a %eginning and an end> a
%eginning o( (uture time and an end o( ast time> it (ollo6s that there must al6ays %e time: (or
the e.tremity o( the last eriod o( time that 6e take must %e (ound in some moment> since time
contains no oint o( contact (or us e.cet the moment. /here(ore> since the moment is %oth a
%eginning and an end> there must al6ays %e time on %oth sides o( it. 8ut i( this is true o( time> it
is e'ident that it must also %e true o( motion> time %eing a kind o( a((ection o( motion.
22
20 9usan 8. +nthony E3n Woman2s 7ight to <ote.F "1)!2. ,istory Place. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.#
21 +ristotle. >ichomachaen !thics. "*50 8.C.;. The Internet Classics (rchive. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.# 8ook II> Part 5.
22 +ristotle. Physics. "/rans. 7. P. &ardie and 7. M. Gaye. *50 8.C.;. /he Internet Classics +rchi'e. We%. 25 +ug. 2012.#
8ook <III> Part 1.
*55
Ans$ers
Passage 1
What is the secies o( domestic industry 6hich his caital can emloy> and o( 6hich the
roduce is likely to %e o( the greatest 'alue> e'ery indi'idual> it is e'ident> can> in his
local situation> 4udge much %etter than any statesman or la6gi'er can do (or him. /he
statesman 6ho should attemt to direct ri'ate eole in 6hat manner they ought to
emloy their caitals 6ould not only load himsel( 6ith a most unnecessary attention> %ut
assume an authority 6hich could sa(ely %e trusted> not only to no single erson> %ut to
no council or senate 6hate'er> and 6hich 6ould no6here %e so dangerous as in the
hands o( a man 6ho had (olly and resumtion enough to (ancy himsel( (it to e.ercise
it.
2*
+dam 9mith2s argument in this assage is the (ollo6ing:
1. Indi'iduals can 4udge ho6 to send their o6n money %etter than the go'ernment.
2. I( the go'ernment directs ho6 indi'iduals must send their money> then the go'ernment 6ill
%urden itsel( 6ith unnecessary 6ork.
*. I( the go'ernment directs ho6 indi'iduals must send their money> then the go'ernment 6ill
assume that it is more Buali(ied to 4udge ho6 the money o( indi'iduals should %e sent than the
indi'iduals.
?/ If individuals can 'udge how to spend their own money better than the government& then the
government should not tell individuals how their money must be spent/ 9hidden assumption:
5. /here(ore> the go'ernment should not tell indi'iduals ho6 their money must %e sent.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
2* 9mith *50.
*55
Passage 2
1id e'er man> =eletus> %elie'e in the e.istence o( human things> and not o( human
%eings, ...1id e'er any man %elie'e in horsemanshi> and not in horses, or in (luteC
laying> and not in (luteClayers, ?o> my (riendK I 6ill ans6er to you and to the court> as
you re(use to ans6er (or yoursel(. /here is no man 6ho e'er did. 8ut no6 lease to
ans6er the ne.t Buestion: Can a man %elie'e in siritual and di'ine agencies> and not in
sirits or demigods,
20
20 E+ologyF 25eC2!c.
*5!
9ocrates2s argument in this assage is the (ollo6ing:
1. ?o one %elie'es in the e.istence o( human things %ut re4ects the e.istence o( human %eings.
2. ?o one %elie'es in horsemanshi> %ut re4ects the e.istence o( horses.
*. ?o one %elie'es in (luteClaying> %ut re4ects the e.istence o( (luteClayers.
?/ >o one has two beliefs that form a blatant contradiction/ 9hidden assumption:
@/ The belief in spiritual agencies and re'ection of spirits form a blatant contradiction/ 9hidden
assumption:
A/ The belief in divine agencies and re'ection of demigods form a blatant contradiction/ 9hidden
assumption:
!. /here(ore> no one %elie'es in siritual and di'ine agencies> %ut re4ects sirits and demigods.
/he argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
Passage 3
@riends and (ello6 citiAens: I stand %e(ore you tonight under indictment (or the alleged
crime o( ha'ing 'oted at the last residential election> 6ithout ha'ing a la6(ul right to
'ote. It shall %e my 6ork this e'ening to ro'e to you that in thus 'oting> I not only
committed no crime> %ut> instead> simly e.ercised my citiAen2s rights> guaranteed to me
*5)
and all Lnited 9tates citiAens %y the ?ational Constitution> %eyond the o6er o( any
state to deny.
/he ream%le o( the @ederal Constitution says:
YWe> the eole o( the Lnited 9tates> in order to (orm a more er(ect union> esta%lish
4ustice> insure domestic tranBuillity> ro'ide (or the common de(ense> romote the
general 6el(are> and secure the %lessings o( li%erty to oursel'es and our osterity> do
ordain and esta%lish this Constitution (or the Lnited 9tates o( +merica.Y
It 6as 6e> the eoleK not 6e> the 6hite male citiAensK nor yet 6e> the male citiAensK %ut
6e> the 6hole eole> 6ho (ormed the Lnion. +nd 6e (ormed it> not to gi'e the
%lessings o( li%erty> %ut to secure themK not to the hal( o( oursel'es and the hal( o( our
osterity> %ut to the 6hole eoleD6omen as 6ell as men. +nd it is a do6nright
mockery to talk to 6omen o( their en4oyment o( the %lessings o( li%erty 6hile they are
denied the use o( the only means o( securing them ro'ided %y this democraticC
reu%lican go'ernmentDthe %allot.
25
9usan 8. +nthony2s argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. /he constitution e.ists (or and %y the eole.
2. I( the constitution e.ists (or and %y the eole> then 6omen ha'e eBual rights 6ith men.
7/ If women have e)ual rights with men& then women citi#ens have a right to vote/ 9hidden
assumption:
0. +ll 6omen citiAens ha'e a right to 'ote.
/he argument ma o( this assage is the (ollo6ing:
25 +nthony.
*5-
Passage 3
We must> ho6e'er> not only descri%e 'irtue as a state o( character> %ut also say 6hat sort
o( state it is. We may remark> then> that e'ery 'irtue or e.cellence %oth %rings into good
condition the thing o( 6hich it is the e.cellence and makes the 6ork o( that thing %e
done 6ellK e.g. the e.cellence o( the eye makes %oth the eye and its 6ork goodK (or it is
%y the e.cellence o( the eye that 6e see 6ell. 9imilarly the e.cellence o( the horse
makes a horse %oth good in itsel( and good at running and at carrying its rider and at
a6aiting the attack o( the enemy. /here(ore> i( this is true in e'ery case> the 'irtue o(
man also 6ill %e the state o( character 6hich makes a man good and 6hich makes him
do his o6n 6ork 6ell.
25
+ristotle2s argument is the (ollo6ing:
1. ;'ery thing2s 'irtue is 6hat makes it good and do its urose 6ell.
5/ If every thing"s virtue is what makes it good and do its purpose well& then the virtue of human
beings make them good and do their purpose well/ 9assumption:
*. /here(ore> the 'irtue o( human %eings make them good and do their urose 6ell.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
Passage 4
I&Jo6 can there %e any 2%e(ore2 and 2a(ter2 6ithout the e.istence o( time, 3r ho6 can
there %e any time 6ithout the e.istence o( motion, I(> then> time Iis needed to Buanti(y
25 >ichomachaen !thics/ 8ook II> Part 5.
*50
motionJ or itsel( a kind o( motion> it (ollo6s that> i( there is al6ays time> motion must
also %e eternal. 8ut so (ar as time is concerned 6e see that all 6ith one e.cetion are in
agreement in saying that it is uncreated: in (act> it is 4ust this that ena%les 1emocritus to
sho6 that all things cannot ha'e had a %ecoming: (or time> he says> is uncreated. Plato
alone asserts the creation o( time> saying that it had a %ecoming together 6ith the
uni'erse> the uni'erse according to him ha'ing had a %ecoming. ?o6 since time cannot
e.ist and is unthinka%le aart (rom the moment> and the moment a kind o( middleCoint>
uniting as it does in itsel( %oth a %eginning and an end> a %eginning o( (uture time and an
end o( ast time> it (ollo6s that there must al6ays %e time: (or the e.tremity o( the last
eriod o( time that 6e take must %e (ound in some moment> since time contains no oint
o( contact (or us e.cet the moment. /here(ore> since the moment is %oth a %eginning
and an end> there must al6ays %e time on %oth sides o( it. 8ut i( this is true o( time> it is
e'ident that it must also %e true o( motion> time %eing a kind o( a((ection o( motion.
2!
/his assage strongly imlies the (ollo6ing main argument:
1. I( time is needed to Buanti(y motion or is a kind o( motion> and time is eternalK then motion is
also eternal.
2. /ime is eternal.
7/ Time is needed to )uantify motion or is a kind of motion/ 9hidden premise:
0. /here(ore> motion is eternal.
/he second remise is suorted %y the (ollo6ing argument:
1. /ime can2t e.ist 6ithout a moment.
2. ;'ery moment has another moment %e(ore and a(ter.
7/ If time can"t eist without a moment and every moment has another moment before and after&
then time is eternal/ 9hidden premise:
0. /here(ore> time is eternal.
/he argument ma (or this assage is the (ollo6ing:
2! Physics. 8ook <III> Part 1.
*51
*52
'orks Cited
+nthony> 9usan 8. E3n Woman2s 7ight to <ote.F 1)!2. ,istory Place. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
+ristotle. >ichomachaen !thics. /rans. W. 1. 7oss. *50 8.C.;. The Internet Classics (rchive. We%. 11
=ar. 2012.
+ristotle. Physics. /rans. 7. P. &ardie and 7. M. Gaye. *50 8.C.;. /he Internet Classics +rchi'e. We%. 25
+ug. 2012.
1ouglass> @rederick. E9ome /houghts 3n Woman2s 7ights.F .redrick Douglass" Paper. 10 June 1)5*.
;d. Philip S/ .oner"s .rederick Douglass 0n -omen"s Rights/ ?e6 Rork: 1e Cao Press> 1--2.
Print.
1ouglass> @rederick. EWhat 9hall 8e 1one 6ith the 9la'es I( ;manciated,F Douglass" 2onthly/
January 1)52. Teaching(merican,istory/org. We%. ) =ar. 2012.
1u8ois> W. ;.8. The Souls of ;lack .olk/ 1-0*. Pro'ect 8utenberg. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
;merson> 7alh Waldo. E+ddress 3n ;manciation In the 8ritish West Indies.F 1)00. The -orks of
Ralph -aldo !merson& in 45 vols. @ireside ed. 8oston and ?e6 Rork> 1-0-. 0nline 1ibrary of
1iberty. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
Je((erson> /homas. E/he Lnanimous 1eclaration o( /he /hirteen Lnited 9tates o( +merica.F 1!!5.
3S,istory/org/ We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
$ocke> John. E+ $etter Concerning /oleration.F 15)-. /rans. 8y William Pole. Constitution/org.
We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
3rtiA> Claudia =arGa Hl'areA. Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? 200!. Rationale.
+usthink.com. We%. 25 June 2012.
Paine> /homas. ECommon 9ense.F 1!!5. Pro'ect 8utenberg. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
Plato. E+ology.F /rans. 8en4amin Jo6ett. 02! 8C;. Pro'ect 8utenberg. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
Plato. The Republic. The Dialogues of Plato in .ive +olumes/ *rd ed. /rans. 8. Jo6ett. 3.(ord
Lni'ersity Press> 1)-2. 0nline 1ibrary of 1iberty. We%. ) =ar. 2012.
9mith> +dam. (n In)uiry into the >ature and Causes of the -ealth of >ations. 1!!5. ;d. 9Zl'io =.
9oares. 2eta1ibri Digital 1ibrary. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
9o4ourner> /ruth. E+ddress to the @irst +nnual =eeting o( the +merican ;Bual 7ights +ssociation.F
?e6 Rork City> =ay -> 1)5!. 3C1(/edu. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
*5*
/horeau> &enry 1a'id. ECi'il 1iso%edience.F 1)55. The .ree 1ibrary. We%. 11 =ar. 2012.
Wollstonecra(t> =ary. ( +indication of the Rights of -oman with Strictures on Political and 2oral
Sub'ects/ $ondon: J. Johnson> 1!-2. The 0nline 1ibrary of 1iberty. We%. ) =arch 2012.
*50