C H A P T E R 2 Claims, Issues, and Arguments, Exams of Reasoning

Download C H A P T E R 2 Claims, Issues, and Arguments and more Exams Reasoning in PDF only on Docsity! 22 C H A P T E R 2 Claims, Issues, and Arguments very argument contains at least one intended conclusion plus one or more supporting reasons, called premises. However, in some passages it is not easy to tell whether an argument occurs at all, nor what the premises and conclusion of an argument are, nor how other arguments in the passage are related to that argument. This chapter explores that understatement. It begins with an introduction of special phrases that often indicate the presence of premises and conclusions. Then the chapter investigates the problems of identifying the unstated premises and conclusions of intended argumentation. For especially complex argumentation, the chapter introduces a diagraming technique that can display argument structure. What is a Claim? Claims are statements. Here is one: ―Neptune has the fastest winds in the solar system.‖ An important claim might be called a proposition, assertion, judgment, hypothesis, principle, thesis, or, in some situations, a law. Claims have to be capable of being true or false. So, if you say, ―It‘s midnight,‖ then you have made a claim, but you haven‘t if you ask, ―Is it midnight?‖ or say, ―Don‘t go out after midnight.‖ Although there‘s a difference between a declarative sentence and the claim made with that declarative sentence, this book will often not honor that distinction and will speak of declarative sentences themselves as being claims. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── Is the following sentence a claim? The biggest question your pre-historic ancestors faced was, "Is that thing behind the bushes my next meal, or am I its next meal?" E 23 ────8 You can‘t spot the claims if you don‘t speak the language. In the passage below from a famous Valley girl, try to decide whether the phrase in italics is (used to make) a claim. You won't be able to figure this out if you don‘t speak a little Valley-girl-ese. So, I loan Whitney my copy of GQ, right, and she drops strawberry yogurt right on the cover, and like I could totally be so edged, but I tried to be cool. To tell whether it's expressing a claim, you don't have to be able to figure out whether it's true, but only whether it could be--whether it's the sort of thing that might be true or might be false. It does make the claim that the speaker could be upset by Whitney's dropping strawberry yogurt on her copy of GQ Magazine. What is an Argument? The word argument has more than one meaning. In this book we will not use the word in the sense of being unpleasantly argumentative. Instead, it will normally mean a conclusion supported by one or more reasons. It takes only one person to have an argument, not two. Saying that two people are "in an argument" means that there are two arguments, not one, in the technical sense of ―argument.‖ 8 Answer: The question itself is not a claim, but the larger sentence containing the question is a claim. It is used to make a claim about the question. 26 e. An average half-hour American TV news program is eleven minutes of commercials, nine of news, six of sports, and four of weather. After choosing Sanderson's conclusion from the above list, comment on the quality of his argument for that conclusion. ────10 What is the Issue? We argue in order to settle issues. Issues arise when there is uncertainty about whether to accept or reject a claim. For example, someone argues for the claim that you ought to quit eating strawberry yogurt because it causes cancer, and you wonder whether it really does. You are wondering about the following issue: whether eating strawberry yogurt will cause cancer. It's common to express an issue by using the word "whether" to indicate the uncertainty involved. You don‘t want to express the issue by taking just one side of the issue. When two people are "in an argument," they are divided on the issue. The metaphor is that they are on opposite sides of the fence. 10 Answer (d) is correct. Sanderson's conclusion is that more time should be spent on the news during a thirty-minute TV news program. Answer (e) is wrong because it is simply a fact that Sanderson uses in his argument. It is something he wants the reader to believe, but it is not something he is arguing for. Regarding the quality of Sanderson's argument, saying only "I don't like his argument" is insufficient; it doesn't go deep enough. This kind of answer is just opinion. To go deeper, the opinion should be backed up by reasons. The weakest part of Sanderson's argument is that he isn't giving us good enough reasons to believe his conclusion. He makes the relevant comment that news occupies only nine minutes out of thirty. He then suggests that you cannot "do much in nine minutes," and he evidently thinks this comment is a reason to believe his conclusion, but by itself it is weak. He probably believes it is obvious that nine is brief, but he ought to argue for this. It's not obvious to his opponent, Harris. Harris could respond by saying, "You can do nine minutes' worth of news in nine minutes. What do you want instead, ten minutes?" Sanderson should have mentioned that too much important news is left out in nine minutes and then tried to back up this remark. 27 A second, common way of expressing an issue is to present it as a question: Will eating strawberry yogurt cause cancer? The question also brings out the uncertainty and doesn't take a side. It would be a mistake to say the issue is that eating strawberry yogurt causes cancer. Using only the word "that" destroys the uncertainty and presents only one side of the issue. The issue is not the same as the topic. The topic is food and health. Topics are more general than issues; issues are more specific than topics. Normally when you find an argument, the issue is whether the argument‘s conclusion is correct. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── The following sentence shows that the writer is confused about the difference between an issue and a claim: The issue of whether an oppressive government is better than no government is a claim open to refutation. 28 What is the best way to rewrite the sentence in order to remove the confusion? a. The claim of whether an oppressive government is better than no government is an issue open to refutation. b. The issue of whether an oppressive government is better than no government is a refuted claim. c. The claim that an oppressive government is better than no government is controversial and open to refutation. d. The issue of whether an oppressive government is better than no government is a position open to refutation. ────11 Our example above used the slippery term ―refutation.‖ If you claim what somebody just said is false, then you aren't refuting their claim; you are simply disagreeing with it. In order to refute it, you'd have to make a successful case that what they said is false. You can‘t refute someone‘s claim merely by contradicting it. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── What is the issue in this argument? You politicos keep arguing that institutions can't be changed when, in fact, they change all the time. Haven't they ever heard of the institution of slavery? It‘s gone from this continent, isn‘t it? a. Can institutions be changed? b. Whether institution of slavery changed. c. That institutions can be changed. 11 The topic is oppressive governments. The issue is whether an oppressive government is better than no government. One position on that issue is the claim that an oppressive government actually is better than no government. This claim is controversial. Thus you should select c as the answer to the above question. That answer is the only one that isn't using one of the following terms incorrectly: issue, position, claim. 31 Sometimes the conclusion is stated before the premises, sometimes after the premises, and sometimes embedded in the middle of the premises. Usually sentences are included that are neither premises nor conclusions; they are there for elaboration or for some other purpose, such as to entertain, to describe, to explain, to discount a possible complaint, and so forth. Here is an example of an argument from authority that contains both kinds of indicator phrases: Because the encyclopedia says that the whale shark is the biggest fish in the ocean, it follows that the whale shark really is the biggest fish on Earth. The word Because indicates a premise, and the phrase it follows that indicates the conclusion. Indicators come before what they indicate. After identifying this argument, you might go on to evaluate it as being fairly strong, but as leaving out the crucial information about whether there are freshwater fish bigger than any fish in the ocean. There aren‘t. This table provides more examples of indicator phrases: 14 Answer (b). Some good arguments have only one premise. Here is an example: "Viruses are the simplest life forms on Earth, so that virus you are looking at with your microscope is simpler than other life forms." 32 Premise Indicators since because for the reason that assuming suppose as indicated by is implied by given that in view of the fact that for granted that one cannot doubt that Conclusion Indicators therefore consequently thus this means so it follows that shows that 33 implies that proves that leads me to believe that hence in conclusion for this reason accordingly the moral is means that we can infer that as a result The following phrases are not helpful clues in identifying arguments and analyzing their structure. They are not indicator phrases: if on the contrary yet and nevertheless also Occasionally words that could be indicators do not function as indicators. Look at the word ―since‖ in this example: Since November when the inflationary spiral ended, state taxes have been high. State farm subsidies will therefore continue to rise. This passage does contain an argument, and the conclusion indicator word therefore signals the conclusion, but the premise indicator word since isn't functioning to indicate a premise. It is working as a time indicator. Because since has multiple meanings, you need to determine whether it is functioning as a premise indicator in the particular situation you are looking at. The good news is that when it is a sign that some element of an argument is present, it always indicates a premise and never a conclusion. 36 Even though that sofa is very expensive, we should buy it anyway because we need one and this one is already here in the apartment we are going to rent. The expense is a relevant factor. The claim ―The sofa is very expensive‖ is there to discount or de-emphasize this factor which would normally be taken as a reason not to buy the sofa. Discount indicators point to relevant factors that might be taken to count against the conclusion being drawn, and the discount claim is there to reject it or de-emphasize it. Discounting often increases the psychological persuasiveness of the argument because it shows that the arguer has paid attention to all the relevant factors. The following terms are frequently used as discount indicators: even though I realize that..., but in spite of the fact that while it may be true that Rewriting Arguments in Standard Form Can you spot the conclusion and premises in this argument? All machines have a finite working lifetime, and even though that big tree doesn‘t look like a typical machine it is really just a biological machine; therefore, I believe it will stop working someday, too. The claim ―That big tree doesn‘t look like a typical machine‖ is a discount claim. The argument‘s conclusion is "That big tree will stop working someday," but this sentence does not occur explicitly in the passage. The conclusion is slightly hidden in the words that follow the indicator word therefore. We readers have to figure out that the word it is referring to "that big tree," and we must also mentally strip away the word too and the phrase I believe. The reason to remove I believe is that it is clear the arguing isn‘t trying to convince that he or she believes the conclusion, but that the conclusion is true. After appreciating all this, we can give the following more explicit picture of the argument: The discount claim is not a premise. 37 All machines have a finite working lifetime. That big tree is really just a biological machine. ───────────────────────────── That big tree will stop working someday. Creating this clear list with the conclusion below the line is called rewriting the argument in standard form. In place of a line, if you add the symbol ‗∴’ before the conclusion, then that is also putting the argument into standard form or standard format. The argument we‘ve been analyzing was originally a single sentence, but this one sentence now has been shown to be composed of four statements, one being a discount claim and the other three being an argument. The process of transforming an argument into its standard form is like the subconscious mental process that occurs when a logical reasoner "sees the argument‖ in a passage. Normally, you would take the trouble to display the argument in standard form only when confronted with an especially complicated argument that you must figure out very carefully. Nobody is suggesting that from now on you sit down with the morning newspaper and rewrite all its arguments into standard form. However, trying your hand at rewriting a few simpler arguments will help build up your skill so you can succeed with more complicated arguments when the stakes are higher. Here is a list of what you should pay attention to when rewriting an argument in standard form:  List the premises, followed by the conclusion  Remove extraneous sentences  Remove indicator phrases  Replace pronouns with their antecedents if possible  Draw a line between the premises and the conclusion (or else place a ‗∴’ before the conclusion)  Add implicit premises  Remove ambiguity wherever possible  There is no need to number the premises because premise order should not make any difference ────CONCEPT CHECK──── Rewrite the following explicit argument in standard form. Don‘t bother with implicit or unstated assumptions about not doing things that lead to your getting bit. Even though you might be tempted, never pick up a recently killed rattlesnake, because its nerve reflexes enable it to bite for some time after death. 38 ────17 Conditionals and the Word If The word if is not in the list of premise indicator words. You cannot rely on if to indicate a premise. In argument A below if is followed by a premise, but in argument B it is part of the conclusion. A. If, as we know, all men are mortal and Jeremiah is a man, not a god, then he is mortal, too. B. If a mercury thermometer is given prolonged heating, it will break. This is because prolonged heating will cause the mercury to expand a great deal. But the thermometer will break apart whenever the mercury expands this much. Let's examine argument B more carefully. Does it assume that a mercury thermometer is actually given prolonged heating? No; doing so would break the thermometer. Notice also that the conclusion is not that the mercury thermometer will actually break, but only that it will break if heated. The conclusion is an if-then statement: if the thermometer is heated, then it will break. So, the if is not indicating a premise, nor is it indicating a conclusion; it is performing another function. If-then statements are called conditional statements or conditionals. A statement can be a conditional even if the companion word then is not present. For example: If the Campbell's Soup Company puts less salt in its soup, sales of Campbell's soup will increase. Does it follow from this conditional claim that Campbell's Soup Company puts less salt in its soup? No. Is the speaker committed to the claim that sales of Campbell's soup will increase? No, the commitment is only to an increase on the condition that the company does something about the salt. That is why conditionals are called "conditionals." 17 It is important to remove the first pronoun from the premise. Here is the standard form of the explicit argument: The nerve reflexes of a recently killed rattlesnake enable it to bite for some time after death. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You should never pick up a recently killed rattlesnake. 41 Deductively Valid and Inductively Strong The primary goal in argumentation is for the conclusion to follow from its basic premises either with certainty or with high probability. Technically, this means the arguer desires the argument to be deductively valid or to be inductively strong. The concept of deductive validity can be given alternative definitions to help you grasp the concept. Below are five definitions. It is common to drop the word deductive from the term deductively valid: An argument is valid if the truth of its basic premises force the conclusion to be true. An argument is valid if it would be inconsistent for its basic premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows with certainty from its basic premises. An argument is valid if the conclusion would be true whenever the basic premises were true. An argument is valid if it has no counterexample, that is, a possible situation that makes the premises true and the conclusion false. This argument is valid: All emeralds are green. The stone placed in the safe deposit box is an emerald. So, the stone placed in the safe deposit box is green. 42 Here is a similar argument that is not valid: All emeralds are green. The stone placed in the safe deposit box is green. So, the stone placed in the safe deposit box is an emerald. That last argument has a counterexample. You can imagine a situation where all emeralds are green and the stone place in the safe deposit box is green jade. That‘s a situation where the premises are true but the conclusion isn‘t. An argument that is not valid is called invalid or deductively invalid. In deductive arguments, the arguer intends for the argument to meet the standard of being deductively valid. In inductive arguments, the arguer intends the argument to satisfy another standard, that the conclusion follow with high probability but not certainty from the basic premises. If it does, the argument is said to be inductively strong. Inductive strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductively validity. The distinction between deductive and inductive argumentation was first noticed by the Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in ancient Greece. When we study inductive arguments in later chapters we will see that an inductive argument can be affected by acquiring new premises (evidence), but a deductive argument cannot be. For example, this is a reasonably strong inductive argument: Today John said he likes Romina. So John likes Romina today. but its strength is changed radically when we add this premise: John told Felipe today that he didn‘t really like Romina. Several later chapters are devoted to exploring deductive validity and inductive strength, but it is important to note that even if your argument is deductively valid or is inductively strong, it won‘t succeed in convincing people of your conclusion unless they know that its premises are true. If you are a critical thinker who doesn‘t know whether one of the premises are true, then you will suspend judgment (about whether the argument is successful) until you find out whether the premises are true. With inductively strong arguments there is a small probability that the conclusion is false if the premises are true, unlike with deductively valid arguments. 43 Uncovering Implicit Premises Reasoners often leave parts of their reasoning unstated. Emilio left something unsaid when he argued that "if the stream were poisonous, everything in it would look dead. There are water spiders and plants in the stream. It's no death trap." Emilio meant for Juanita and you to assume that the water spiders and plants in the stream are not dead. He just didn't say so explicitly. It was too obvious. Implicit premises are the unstated claims or unstated assumptions of the argument. For instance, suppose a biologist argues that there is nothing ethically wrong in the fact that about thirteen animals per day are killed in her laboratory, because the deaths further her scientific research. In this argument, she uses the unstated assumption that if something done to animals furthers someone‘s scientific research then it is not ethically wrong. In this case, by exposing the implicit premise we analysts can get a clearer idea of what sort of reasoning is going on. How did we figure out which assumption she was making? We mentally noted that with this assumption the argument would be deductively valid, and so we used the principle of charity and said this is what she must have been assuming. Of course we could be wrong. To know for sure what she is assuming, we would have had to ask her. Let's talk about directions. Is New York to the right of Chicago? Or would you say it‘s to the left? If you think about what you know of U.S. geography, this isn't a difficult question. Chicago is in the interior of the U.S., and New York is on the Atlantic Coast, the East Coast. New York is east of Chicago, but how about right of Chicago? That's not quite the same thing, is it? Whether New York is to the right depends on what you can safely assume about your perspective. The answer is "Yes, it's to the right" if you can safely assume directions are to be judged by someone above the U.S. and looking north and down onto Earth because from that perspective the directions of east and right are the same direction. But suppose you make a different assumption. If you were standing on the North Pole, you'd say New York is left of Chicago. If you were standing inside the Earth at its center, you'd say the same, but it would be very odd to assume that the judgment is to be made from either of these perspectives. So, the bottom line here is that it's correct to say New York is to the right of Chicago if you make the normal assumptions about perspective. Critical thinkers are charitable and not overly picky; they always pay attention to what assumptions are appropriate for the situation. But they aren't so charitable that they overlook 46 Arguments don‘t come to us with labels as being deductive or inductive. We who are trying to understand an argument will look to see if the argument meets either standard, being deductively valid or being inductively strong, and we will look for implicit premises that are needed for the argument to meet that standard. For example, do this with the inductive argument in this concept check. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── What is the missing premise in this passage? Most soft minerals will make a compound with tantalum, so baxalite will, too. ────21 The most common implicit premises are definitions of words, principles of grammar, rules of semantics22, theorems of mathematics, and the commonly held beliefs of our civilization. We might argue that because Dwayne loves Jesus, Jesus is loved by Dwayne. This deductively valid argument depends on a grammatical principle about passive voice transformation that we rarely need to spell out. Everybody who speaks English can follow the inference, even though few of us could actually write down the grammatical and semantical rules of our own language. There is another important, implicit assumption in the above argument. The word Dwayne names the same person throughout the argument. If we violate this assumption or tentative agreement among speakers, then we are said to be equivocating. A writer who bothered to explicitly remind us of this fact about the word Dwayne would be cluttering up the argument with too many details. Many jokes turn on who holds what assumption. In the following joke, Suzanne says essentially that one of Jack's assumptions is mistaken: Jack: Get those drugs out of this house; nobody is going to risk my daughter's sanity. Suzanne: You can't risk what's not there, Jack. 21 Implicit premise: Baxalite is a soft mineral. 22 This book does not emphasize your knowing the difference between grammar and semantics. ―He him ignored‖ contains a grammar error. The grammatically correct sentence, ―He ignored yesterday who is knocking at the door tomorrow,‖ contains a semantic error because it violates the meaning of words about time. 47 ────CONCEPT CHECK──── If you understood that joke, then you saw that (pick one): a. Jack assumed that his daughter is sane. b. Jack assumed that Suzanne is insane. c. Suzanne assumed that Jack's daughter is sane. d. Jack assumed that Suzanne's daughter is insane. e. Suzanne assumed that Jack is insane. ────23 Locating Unstated Conclusions Just as we detect missing premises by using our knowledge of indicator terms and of what is needed for deductive validity and inductive strength, so we can also use that knowledge to detect missing conclusions. What is the implicit conclusion in the following argument? All insects have exactly six legs, but all spiders have exactly eight legs, so now what do we know about whether spiders are insects? You, the reader have to figure out the conclusion for yourself: that spiders are not insects. 23 Answer (a). 48 People who are unwilling to do this detective work and are insensitive to the implicit elements in reasoning will miss the point of many passages, as we will see in the following concept check. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── What is the implicit conclusion you are supposed to draw in the following joke? My father had a lot of patience with me when I was growing up. Whenever he got mad at me he would slowly count to ten. Then he'd lift my head out of the water. a. All people have fathers. b. My father had a lot of patience with me when I was growing up. c. My father was impatient with me when I was growing up. d. My father would lift my head out of the water after a slow count to twenty. ────24 Unstated premises are very common. Unstated conclusions are less common and more difficult to uncover. If you were presented with the following conditional and knew nothing else, then it wouldn‘t be an argument. It would just be a claim. But let‘s suppose you can tell from the 24 The argument is an indirect way of saying my father was impatient, so the answer is (c). 51 photo by Fernando de Sousa, Melbourne, Australia Two people are sitting in a dark movie theater a row behind you. They are trying to get you to draw a conclusion without expressing it directly. What conclusion? Man: Do you have the two snakes we brought in with us? Woman: No, I thought you had them. Man: Oh! ────25 Another difficulty in spotting arguments is that they can differ greatly in their structure. Instead of backing up a conclusion by only one package of reasons, an arguer might give a variety of lines of argument for the conclusion. That is, the arguer could produce two or more sets of reasons in support of the conclusion, and might even add why the opposition's argument contains errors. Jones did this in our earlier courtroom story. He gave a set of reasons for acquittal by arguing that there is an alternative explanation of all the facts. In addition, he argued that the prosecution's strong reliance on the clerk's testimony is no good because the clerk stole from her sorority. Arguments can have other complexities, too. Often arguers defend one or more of their reasons with reasons for those reasons, and even reasons for those reasons, and so forth. An arguer may 25 Snakes have gotten loose near you in the theater. 52 simultaneously argue for several conclusions, or draw a second conclusion from a first conclusion. So the structure of an argument can become quite complex. However, just as molecules are composed of atoms, so complex arguments are composed of "atomic" arguments, each with its own single conclusion and basic reasons to back it up. Breaking down complex arguments into their simpler elements in this way can make the complex arguments understandable. Mathematics can contain obscure arguments. Math professors who create a proof rarely state every step in their proof. However, if the argument is correct, then the reasoning from any one step to another can be reconstructed as a deductively valid argument. For math experts, the reconstruction process is easier than for the rest of us. Here is an interesting dialogue that contains an obscure argument. Evidently this dialogue occurred several centuries ago. King: I told you to bring me a head of a witch, and you‘ve given me the head of a necromancer. Executioner: The Inquisition has declared that all necromancers are witches. King: Oh, all right then. In mathematical reasoning, it is customary to assume implicitly all the principles of mathematics you need to carry out the reasoning. 53 By saying, "Oh, all right then," the king infers that he has in fact been given the head of a witch. In his reasoning, he uses the following deductively valid, but implicit, sub-argument: All necromancers are witches. --------------------------------------------------------------- All heads of necromancers are heads of witches. If you were asked whether the statement "she probably won't be here to chair the meeting" is a premise or a conclusion in the following argument, the right response would be to say "Both" because it is a basic premise, but it is also argued for. She's got the flu again, so she probably won't be here to chair the meeting. Therefore, I'll have to do it. Damn! The word so is a conclusion indicator of the sub-conclusion, and the word therefore is a conclusion indicator of the final conclusion, or last conclusion. Here are the two arguments: She's got the flu again. So, she probably won't be here to chair the meeting. She probably won't be here to chair the meeting. So, I'll have to chair the meeting. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── The word so is a conclusion indicator in the following passage. Is it an indicator of the final conclusion or only of a sub-conclusion on the way to the final conclusion? It's safe to conclude that all the patients given the AIDS antidote now have red hair. Remember, Janelle had red hair before the experiment, and there has been no change in her hair color; Rudy has fairly red hair; and Sam's hair has now changed to red, hasn't it? So, all three have red hair. But these three are the only patients that were given the AIDS antidote. ────26 Diagramming Multiple Arguments 26 Sub-conclusion. This sub-conclusion is a basic premise for the final conclusion that all the patients given the AIDS antidote now have red hair. 56 \ / C The reason why the third is do different is that B is an intermediate conclusion in the first two diagrams but not in the third. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── Draw the diagram of the following argument form: E and J ──── C. Don't worry about which statements the capital letters represent. ────28 Let's diagram another example, an argument about whales: All whales have backbones; my biology teacher said so. Therefore, Humphrey has a backbone, too. We first need to apply the principle of charity to spot the unstated assumption that Humphrey is a whale. Without that assumption, this would be a terrible argument, which it isn't. Now, let's pick arbitrary labels for the key statements: (1) All whales have backbones. (2) My biology teacher said that all whales have backbones. (3) Humphrey is a whale. (4) Humphrey has a backbone. The correct tree diagram for this argument is 2 | 1 3 28 E J You might wish to diagram it this way if E + J \ / you know that E and J don‘t give separate ------- C reasons in support of C. ↓ C 57 \ / 4 If you had two arguments that had nothing to do with each other, then you would not connect them and instead would use two separate diagrams. If an argument contains a conditional, you can diagram the conditional in either of two ways. Let‘s use the schematic conditional ―If A then B,‖ and call this sentence 8. You can diagram this as simply 8, or you can diagram it this way: A | B ────CONCEPT CHECK──── Can you fill in the nodes (labels) by replacing the question marks? Two nodes are completed. If (1) Svetlana wants to get a higher GPA, then (2) she had better cut back on her work hours or her party time. (3) Rolando told Kevin who told me that she does want to do what it takes to get a higher GPA, so I‘d say (4) she really does. (5) There‘s no way she can cut back on her work hours if (6) she‘s going to pay to stay in school, but (7) she‘s got to pay for this. So, (8) she‘ll be cutting back on her party time. ? | ? ? | | 1 6 | | ? ? \ / \ / ? ────29 29 Try to avoid looking at the answer until you‘ve worked this concept check. Answer: 3 | 58 If a sentence is a negation, you might put the NOT in your diagram if this helps you picture the multiple argumentation. For example, suppose your argument contains the sentence, ―Defense spending is not going to be significantly reduced.‖ You might label this sentence as ―D‖ and diagram the sentence as ―D.‖ Or you might diagram it with a more descriptive phrase as NOT REDUCED where your word ―REDUCED‖ abbreviates ―Defense spending is going to be significantly reduced.‖ This way, ―NOT REDUCED‖ abbreviates ―Defense spending isn‘t going to be significantly reduced.‖ You can use whatever definitions and symbols you believe will help to reveal the structure you want to reveal in your diagram. Some people like to use words; others prefer numbers or letters. Let‘s work on one more complicated passage by drawing a tree diagram of the premise- conclusion relationships for the following argument. The sentences are already numbered. (1) If defense spending were going to be significantly reduced, then the value of the dollar against the German mark would increase. (2) The defense spending would have that effect because the U.S. balance of payments and national debt would be improved if defense spending were significantly reduced. (3) Also, if the balance of payments and national debt were improved, the value of the dollar against the German mark would increase. (4) However, we know that defense spending is not going to be significantly reduced, so the value of the dollar against the German mark won't increase. This is complicated enough that it really helps to draw the diagram. We might use the following abbreviations: REDUCED = Defense spending is significantly reduced. INCREASE = The value of the dollar against the German mark increases. IMPROVED = The U.S. balance of payments and national debt is improved. 4 7 | | 1 6 | | 2 5 \ / \ / 8 61 Let's examine a slightly more complicated example of reasoning that introduces a new kind of tree diagram. Suppose a fire inspector for an insurance company learns that (A) your apartment building burned down yesterday and that (B) a well-known arsonist, Jerry Lee, was arrested for speeding in a direction away from your apartment building about five minutes after the fire started. On the basis of this information, the fire inspector might say, "I'll bet (C) the building's landlord will soon be filing a claim against our company, and (D) Jerry Lee is the best suspect to question first." Notice that although C and D are two conclusions, C isn't the reason she gives for D, and D isn't the reason she gives for C. Instead, there are two arguments: A A B / \ / C D The two could be combined as A B / \ / C D Descriptions and Explanations Language is a tool we can use for many purposes. We use it to describe a situation, to explain why an event occurred, and to argue that our conclusion should be believed. But we also use it to intimidate, to promise, to perform marriages, to forgive, to apologize, and to insult. However, most of our reasoning occurs when we use language to describe, explain, or argue, which is why this book concentrates on these uses. Here is a quick summary of the differences: •A description says that it's like that. •An explanation says how it came to be like that. •An argument tries to convince you that it is like that. Arguments aim at convincing you that something is so or that something should be done. Explanations don't. They assume you are already convinced, and they try to show the cause, the motivation, or the sequence of events that led up to it. Explanations of events often indicate the forces or causes that made the event occur. In the case of events that are human actions, such as Dwayne's unscrewing the lid on a jar of peanut butter, the explanation of Dwayne‘s action might appeal to his intentions, such as that he wanted to 62 satisfy his hunger. Intentions are mental causes, not physical causes. In one of the last chapters of this book, we will explore the details of causal explanations. ────CONCEPT CHECK──── Is this an argument or an explanation? Let me explain myself more clearly. The car will explode if you drop the match into the gas tank. You don‘t want that, do you? So, don‘t drop the match in there. ────30 To appreciate the difference between a description and an explanation, consider one of the current limits of medical science. Scientists do not know what causes pimples, but they do have a clear understanding of what pimples are. That is, they can provide a detailed description of pimples, but they can offer no explanation of why some people get them and some do not. Scientists can describe but not explain. When we explain, we normally explain events, not persons or objects. Historians don't explain Napoleon. They explain why he did what he did. Arguments are different still. An argument is designed to convince someone to do something or to believe something, which it does by giving specific reasons. For example, we could argue that Napoleon became emperor of France because history professors say so. Notice that this argument doesn't describe the event (of Napoleon's becoming emperor of France) or explain it. The argument simply gives a reason to believe that it occurred. Although descriptions need not be explanations, and although arguments are different from both, in real life they get jumbled together. This is fine; we don't often need them to occur in their pure form. However, it's hard to appreciate all that is going on in a jumbled whole unless we appreciate the parts. 30 This is an argument for the conclusion that you should not drop the match in the gas tank. The speaker misused the word ―explain.‖ Instead of using the phrase, ―explain myself,‖ the speaker should have said, ―spell out my argument.‖ The main goal in a good argument is for the conclusion to follow from the premises. 63 ────CONCEPT CHECK──── Below, say which is the argument, which is the description, and which is the explanation. a. It‘s raining cats and dogs. If we go on the picnic today, we will get really wet, and probably be unhappy. b. We shouldn‘t go on the picnic because we will get really wet and probably be unhappy. c. It‘s raining cats and dogs there at the picnic area because the thunderstorm finally blew in from the North. ────31 If Betsy Ross says, "The new flag I designed has red and white stripes with thirteen stars," is she explaining the flag? No, she is just describing it. She is not explaining where the flag came from or what motivated her to make it. Nor is she arguing about it. However, if Betsy Ross says something a little more elaborate, such as "The new flag I designed has red and white stripes with thirteen stars for the thirteen new states," she is describing the flag and also explaining why it has thirteen stars instead of some other number. 31 (a) description, (b) argument, (c) explanation. The word ―because‖ appears in both the argument and the explanation, which should tell you that the word ―because‖ is not a reliable indicator of whether an argument or an explanation is present. However, if an argument is present, then the word ―because‖ indicates a premise; but if an explanation is present, then the word ―because‖ probably indicates a cause or motive. 66 apple toward the center of the Earth until the resistance of the ground stopped the fall. His explanation is not an argument that the apple fell. It is taken for granted that the event occurred; what's in doubt is why it occurred. When Edward appeals to the existence of gravitational force and to the structural weakness of the apple's stem to explain why the apple fell, he is giving a possible explanation of why it happened, perhaps even the right explanation. Nevertheless, he doesn't defend his explanation. He doesn't argue that his is the right explanation. He doesn't give any reasons why the apple's falling should be explained this way instead of by saying that "It was the apple's time" or by appealing to magnetic attraction between the apple and the iron core at the center of the earth. Let‘s now investigate how to distinguish explanations from arguments when they are jumbled together. You create both when you explain why event E occurred and then argue for why this explanation of E is better than alternative explanations. For example, articles in science journals are often devoted to arguing that one explanation of a phenomenon is better than a previously suggested explanation. Sometimes arguments are offered as to why someone's explanation of an event is the right one, and sometimes the argument is intermixed with the explanation. Nevertheless, the argument and the explanation are distinct, not identical. Even if an argument does not accompany the explanation, every scientist who claims to offer the explanation of some event has the burden of proving this claim by providing that argument if challenged. 67 ────CONCEPT CHECK──── You remember the dinosaurs, don‘t you? They appeared on Earth back in the day when New Jersey was next to Morocco. Construct an argument for the fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago without explaining that fact. According to the theory of evolution, this is approximately the time that the Rocky Mountains and European Alps were created. And it was at about this time that the world got its first plants with flowers. (Don't worry too much about the quality of the argument; just make sure that it is an argument and not an explanation.) ────35 A velociraptor36 ────CONCEPT CHECK──── 35 Argument: The experts in geology and biology confirm this, and they generally agree among themselves, except for a few lone wolves such as the creationists. That was not an explanation. 36 This photo from Wikipedia Commons Graphics is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license to Salvatore Rabito Alcón. 68 Construct an explanation, but not an argument, for the fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. (Don't worry too much about the quality of the explanation; just make sure that it is an explanation and not an argument.) ────37 Review of Major Points We briefly explored the differences among descriptions, arguments, and explanations. Descriptions state the facts, report on states of mind, express values, and so forth. Arguments aim at convincing you that something is so or that something should be done. Explanations don't. They assume you are already convinced and instead try to show the cause, the motivation, or the sequence of events that led up to it. We noted that some arguments are strong enough to be called proofs. Premise and conclusion indicator phrases serve as guideposts for detecting arguments. Almost all arguments have some implicit elements. The most common implicit premises are definitions of words, principles of grammar, and rules of mathematics. Rewriting arguments in standard form is a helpful way to display their essential content. Arguments can have quite complex structure; for example, there are often sub-arguments within longer arguments. Drawing tree diagrams can help display this structure. Arguments can be evaluated as being deductively valid or inductively strong. With inductively strong arguments there is a small probability that the conclusion is false if the premises are true, unlike with deductively valid arguments. Glossary argument A conclusion plus one or more basic premises. basic premises The basic premises for a conclusion are those premises that directly support the conclusion rather than indirectly support it. Indirect premises are premises in support of other premises, such as those in support of the basic premises. conclusion indicators Words or phrases that signal the presence of conclusions but not premises. Examples: So, therefore, thus, it follows that. 37 A six-mile-wide rock crashed into our planet 65 million years ago, knocking up so much dust that the planet was dark for about a month. During this month the weather turned very cold, and the dinosaurs' main food died. The dinosaurs could not quickly adapt to the new conditions, and they died. (The air sure must have smelled bad that month!) 71 3. Ok, you math geniuses, a farmer had 17 sheep, and all but 9 died. Then the farmer was given 2 from his brother but both died. How many of the farmer's sheep were left? [Hint: Not 8.] 4. You can not reduce your electric bill by tying knots in your electric wires to reduce the flow of electricity. a. true b. false 5. Detecting Single, Explicit Arguments ■ 1. What is the conclusion indicator term in this argument? If it rains, then it‘s a bad time for a picnic. So, we shouldn‘t go there for a picnic since Svetlana knows it‘s raining there now. At least that‘s what she heard. a. If b. Then c. So d. We shouldn‘t go there for a picnic e. None of the above39 ■ 2. What is the premise indicator term in this argument? We already know the solution to Rafael‘s third math problem is a number which is divisible by 8. I think the answer is probably 32. At any rate, we can suppose that for any number, if it is divisible by 8, then it is divisible by 16. So, the solution to his third problem is divisible by 16. Isn‘t 32 divisible by 16? a. I think b. at any rate c. we can suppose that d. if e. so40 39 Answer (c). 40 Answer (c). 72 ■ 3. Which sentence below probably is not being used to make a claim (that is, a statement)? a. I wonder if we should turn back. b. Financial ruin from medical bills is almost exclusively an American disease. c. I learned a long time ago that minor surgery is when they do the operation on someone else, not you. d. My bumper sticker asks, ―Do you believe in love at first sight, or should I drive by again?‖41 4. Identify all the conclusion indicators and premise indicators, if any, in the following passage: The Philadelphia company‘s letter said they would place their call to us here in Los Angles at 2pm their time. They are in a time zone that is three hours east of us, therefore we should expect their call at 11am our time, but if they don‘t call then let‘s go to plan B. ■ 5. The sentence below is quite likely a. an argument b. not an argument Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) chips were once the popular choice for memory storage on personal computers since, unlike the SRAM chip, they were less expensive per byte and the DRAM design essentially required using only one transistor per bit.42 ■ 6. The following passage contains a. an argument b. a report of an argument c. neither Through a process of trial and error, early people slowly learned that some contaminated food made them sick, while other contaminations improved the flavor, made an exhilarating fruit drink, or helped preserve the food for longer periods of time. In modern times, scientists learned that the contaminations are due to bacteria, yeast, and molds.43 41 Answer (a). Usually declarative sentences are used to make claims, but not always. The declarative sentence ―I promised to meet you‖ is true or false, but the declarative sentence ―I promise to meet to‖ is neither. 42 Answer (a). The conclusion is that dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips were once the popular choice for memory storage on personal computers. One clue is the premise indicator term since. 43 Answer (c). 73 7. The sentence below is quite likely a. an argument b. not an argument The life of a respected technical professional has few spare moments because there's all that work from running labs to teaching to speaking at colloquiums to writing grant proposals to selling research programs to administrating or managing to maybe even finding a few minutes to think about what to do. ■ 8. Which are the premise indicators in the following list? if, then, yet, nevertheless, on the contrary, but, thus, suppose that44 ■ 9. Which are the conclusion indicators in the following list? if, then, yet, nevertheless, on the contrary, but, thus, suppose that45 ■ 10. Does this argument contain any premise indicators that are working to indicate premises? If so, identify them. President Kennedy was smart to have approved of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 since he could be reasonably certain the USSR wouldn't physically intervene to help Cuba, and since he wanted to do something that could overthrow the left-wing government that had replaced Cuba's right-wing dictatorship.46 11. Is the word since working to indicate a premise or conclusion in the following? Since 5 p.m. I‘ve been hungry. 12. Add a premise indicator, remove the conclusion indicator (without replacement), and rewrite the following argument as a single sentence. Ever since the inflationary spiral ended, state taxes have been high. State farm subsidies will therefore continue to rise. 13. Is the word suppose working as a premise indicator in the following? 44 Suppose that. 45 Thus. 46 Yes, the word since is used twice as a premise indicator. 76 If you get lost in the woods and no one responds to your calls, walk downhill until you come to a stream. Then walk downstream; you'll eventually come to a town.50 ■ 22. Identify the discount claim and the discount indicator in the following passage. Svetlana came over this afternoon in an even worse state than this morning. She is so mad at Na that I worry what she‘s going to do. She asked for the knife back that she loaned us. I realize that we did promise to give it back soon, but she‘s so agitated right now that, if we return it, I think she‘s going to use it on Na. So, let‘s lie to her and say we can‘t seem to find the knife.51 ■ 23. Indicate the conclusion of the following argument: Our planet is 8,000 miles around, yet most all the air around the planet is in a thin blanket less than five miles thick, thinner as you go up. When any dust is blown up, it can‘t go far up. It circulates around, and somebody somewhere breathes it. Good dust or bad dust. Most people in Los Angeles believe that the great sunsets they saw three years ago were not out of the ordinary. In fact, Los Angeles had those great sunsets because it had great smog. The smog came from the explosion of the volcano in the Philippines three years ago. It sent 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the air. This added color, not only to L.A. sunsets, but it made for great sunsets all over the world. a. When the dust goes up, it can‘t go far up. b. Most people in L.A. are mistaken about the cause of their beautiful sunsets three years ago. c. Los Angeles had those great sunsets (three years ago). d. The world had great sunsets three years ago because of the explosion of the volcano in the Philippines three years ago. e. The explosion of the volcano in the Philippines three years ago sent 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the air.52 50 The passage is giving you advice, not reasons for the advice. You could imagine someone creating an argument from this. It might be that the advice should be taken because it will lead you to safety in this situation, and you ought to accept advice that will do this. 51 The discount indicator is ―I realize that … but‖ and the discount claim is ―We did promise to give the knife back soon.‖ 52 Answer (b). The word ―because‖ is not a premise indicator in an argument; it is a premise indicator in an explanation, and that is why (c) is an incorrect answer. This exercise has an 77 24. Identify the conclusion in this argument: Robert Smalls was assigned to the slave crew of a Confederate ship at Charleston, South Carolina during the U.S. Civil War. When all the officers had gone ashore, he seized control of the ship, put on a Confederate officer‘s hat to hide his black face and sailed past the unsuspecting Confederate canons of Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Upon reaching the Union Navy off the coast of South Carolina, he turned over the ship to them. He later was made a captain in the Union navy and given command of the ship until the end of the war. So, are you so sure you were correct when you said, ―There were no black heroes during that war‖? ■ 25. (a) Identify the conclusion of this argument. (b) Assuming the premises are true, is the argument strong or weak? No, table tennis could not have been invented before the American Revolution. This is because table tennis needs plastic balls, but plastic wasn‘t invented by 1775 when the Revolution began.53 ■ 26. Identify the conclusion indicator term, if there is any, in the following argument: According to the New Encyclopedia of the People of Russia, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella united Aragon and Castille into the modern country of Spain in 1469. They founded the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 as a branch of the government and appointed Torquemada to be the grand inquisitor. This government agency caused all sorts of official terror, and was generally bad for Europeans, although it brought certain short- term benefits to the Catholic Church. On the other hand, King Ferdinand and especially Queen Isabella paid for Christopher Columbus‘ trip west to find Asia, and this was very beneficial for the European world because it opened up new sources of wealth, adventure, and knowledge, although there may have been some negatives for the local tribes in the New World. So, Ferdinand and Isabella‘s marriage had both good and bad consequences for Europe. Nevertheless, when you weigh the pros and cons, you‘ve got to admit that the good heavily outweighs the bad─for Europeans. a. according to b. nevertheless c. on the other hand especially important form because so many real-life arguments have the same form. The form is: ―Here is the data; most people draw such and such a conclusion from the data. They are wrong. Here is why.‖ The conclusion is: They are wrong. 53 (a) Table tennis could not have been invented before the American Revolution. (b) Strong. 78 d. so e. There is no conclusion indicator54 27. The sentence ―I now pronounce you man and wife,‖ when said by a judge (justice of the peace) to a couple who have applied for a license to be married, is a. a claim b. an argument c. none of the above 28. He‘s so good at chess he doesn‘t even refer to that piece as the horse. Argument for the conclusion that he doesn‘t even refer to that piece as the horse. Argument for the conclusion that he‘s good at chess. A claim. Neither an argument nor a claim.55 29. Identify the conclusion indicator and the conclusion in this argument: Slavery in Saudi Arabia was officially abolished in 1962. That means that if they still have slaves it‘s under the legal ―radar.‖ a. The indicator is ―That means‖ and the conclusion is that slavery in Saudi Arabia is under the legal ―radar.‖ b. The indicator is ―That means‖ and the conclusion is that slavery in Saudi Arabia was officially abolished in 1962. c. There is no conclusion indicator, but the conclusion is that if Saudi Arabia still has slaves, then it is under the legal ―radar.‖ d. The indicator is ―That means that if‖ and the conclusion is that if Saudi Arabia still has slaves, then it is under the legal ―radar.‖ e. None of the above. 54 Answer (e). 55 Answer (c). 81 To say that TEX, the scientific word processor language, takes a little effort to learn is like saying that with a little effort you could build your own full-scale, working Challenger spacecraft and run your own space shuttle program. Surely you don't believe you can do this, do you? 5. Rewrite this argument in standard form so that it is deductively valid: "Joshua, quit that! Justine isn't bothering you!" 6. When the senator says, "Murder is wrong," and the reporter says, "Well, then you must think capital punishment is wrong, too," the reporter is making an argument, but she is leaving a lot unsaid. Her significant implicit premise is that the senator thinks a. Murder is a kind of capital punishment. b. Capital punishment is a kind of murder. c. Capital punishment is neither right nor wrong. d. If capital punishment is wrong, then murder is wrong. 7. Identify the principal implicit element (and say whether it is a premise or a conclusion) in the following argument regarding the correctness of the theory of biological evolution. According to the fossil record as it is interpreted by evolutionists, spiders have been on earth for 300 million years but have not changed. Yet, if evolution were really working, surely they would have changed by now, wouldn't they? 8. Identify the most significant implicit premise used in the following argument: All good Americans hate cancer and love the first lady. So, Roberto Salazar Rodriguez loves the first lady. ■ 9. Give the standard form of this deductively valid argument, adding the significant implicit premises, if there are any: If the moral thing to do is always whatever your society says, then Nazi brutality was ethically OK in Nazi Germany. Therefore, the moral thing to do is not always whatever your society says it is.59 59 Here is the standard form: If the moral thing to do is always whatever your society says, then Nazi brutality was ethically OK in Nazi Germany. Nazi brutality was not ethically OK in Nazi Germany. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The moral thing to do is not always whatever your society says it is. 82 10. What premise is probably being assumed to make the following argument be deductively valid? Tom New is running for state treasurer of Indiana, so he knows a lot about public finances. a. If a person knows a lot about public finances, then the person is running for state treasurer of Indiana. b. If a person is running for some public office, then the person probably knows a lot about public finances. c. Tom New is a candidate with financial savvy. d. Anybody who runs for state treasurer of Indiana is financially ambitious. e. All candidates for federal office know a lot about public finances. f. If a person is running for state treasurer of any state, then the person knows a lot about public finances. g. People who know a lot about public finances often run for state treasurer in Indiana. ■ 11. The following statement is not an argument, but the reader most probably can assume that the speaker believes what? Stick your hands up or I'll blow your head off. a. The hands of the person being spoken to are not up. b. If you stick your hands up, I will blow your head off. c. The two people have guns. d. If I blow your head off, then your hands were up. e. I will blow your head off.60 12. Rewrite the conclusion of this argument as a declarative sentence. 60 Answer (a). 83 What do you mean "We should let a pregnant woman decide whether she has an abortion"? If you let them decide, then you are letting people commit murder. You can't let them do that, can vou? Multiple Arguments 1. What is the most significant implicit premise used in the first sub-argument of this argument chain? She's got the flu again, so she probably won't be here to chair the meeting. Therefore, I'll have to do it. Damn! ■ 2. Write out the standard form of the first sub-argument in the following argument. Galileo said good science uses mathematics, yet Charles Darwin's work on evolution uses no mathematics. Therefore, Darwin's work on evolution is not good science.61 3. In the following passage, (a) does Alice argue? If so, what is her conclusion? (b) Does her employer? If so, what is his conclusion? ―Maybe. Maybe not,‖ Alice said as her eyebrows bulged. ―But that‘s beside the point. He should not be allowed anywhere near that project. Keep him out of there. Get somebody else,‖ she said. Her employer had other ideas, evidently. He responded, ―Listen Alice, you might be in charge of that project, but you‘re wrong, dead wrong. Think about it.‖ ―Look,‖ said Alice, biting through her words, ―there is no way in hell that I‘m going to permit him to do that, and if you don‘t like it, you know what you can do with it.‖ After several days, things quieted down between the two of them, but last week Alice received her termination notice. That was the day she bought the poison. a. Alice is arguing that he should not be allowed anywhere near that project. b. Her employer is arguing that she bought the poison. c. Her employer is arguing that he should be permitted to work on the project. d. Nobody is giving anybody reasons. 61 The sub-argument in standard form is: Galileo said good science uses mathematics. ---------------------------------------------------- Good science uses mathematics. 86 Let's hike out of here. We'll get sick if we stay and drink the water from the stream. Also, we‘ve been here so long that more camping will be boring, and aren't the mosquito bites worse than we expected? The water will make us sick because there was a sign back at the ranger station warning us about giardia, and the dog we saw last night drinking from the stream is still vomiting. Besides, the water is murky. 5. Consider the following complex argument for the final conclusion C: In this complex argumentation, P2 serves as both a premise and a conclusion. a. true b. false 6. In the complex argumentation in the previous question, P3 is the conclusion of a sub- argument. a. true b. false 7. In the complex argumentation in the previous question, P4 is the conclusion of a sub- argument. a. true b. false 87 8. Consider this argument: Either you are no friend of Sarah's or you will let me in to borrow your stereo for her. But since you obviously won't let me in to borrow your stereo for her, you are no friend of hers, and I intend to tell her so. Is the following a correct diagram of the premise-conclusion-support relationships? If not, why not? B = You will let me in to borrow your stereo for Sarah. F = You are a friend of Sarah's. Not-F or B Not-B \ / Not-F ■ 9. Draw the tree diagram of the multiple argumentation contained within the following passage: There is no way you are going to be able to convince David to go out with Yolanda on Saturday night. He is living with Cynthia. Besides, he doesn't really like Yolanda, does he? And don't try to talk to Michael, either. He and Yolanda haven't said much to each other ever since she got stuck holding the extra Kings tickets that she couldn't resell. And forget Steve, too. But those three guys are the only possible candidates for Yolanda, so there's no way that Yolanda is going out Saturday night with anyone from our class. If Yolanda goes out Saturday night, it will be with someone not in our class.64 64  Cynthia = David is living with Cynthia.  Not-Like = David doesn't really like Yolanda.  Not-David = David can't be convinced to go out with Yolanda Saturday night.  Kings-Tickets = Michael and Yolanda haven't said much to each other ever since she got stuck holding the extra Kings tickets that she couldn't resell.  Not-Michael = Michael can't be convinced to go out with Yolanda Saturday night. 88 10. A juror is arguing that the defendant Mayfield is guilty of robbing the Ail-Night Grocery. Draw the tree diagram, and evaluate the quality of the argumentation. No, he's as guilty as sin. Take a look at his face. He won't even look the district attorney in the eye. Besides, he refused to take the lie detector test. You failed to mention that the police report shows when he was first arrested he denied even being in the grocery store, but we‘ve proved he was there, so he's a known liar. 11. Draw the tree diagram of the following multiple argumentation. You may ignore implicit premises and any explanations that are given in the passage. If you use any of the numbered statements below in your tree, use those numbers in your tree. (1) George recently filed a police complaint against his neighbor for making too much noise. So, (2) he will be contacted by the city after the investigation. It also follows that (3) he doesn't see much hope in solving his problem by talking to his neighbor any more. George filed not only because (4) there had been many incidents of loud noise, as far as he was concerned, but also because (5) his wife urged him to. (6) She was mad about his doing so badly in his job interview on the morning after he was up several times complaining to her about the neighbor's noise. 12. Consider the following complex expressions which are composed of simple claims that are abbreviated as A and B and C. For each of the complex expressions, say whether it is an argument or merely a claim: a. A, but not B. b. A, but not B, and consequently C. c. A, which is why B, but not C. d. A and B follow from C. e. A and maybe B, or perhaps C.65  Not-Steve = Steve can't be convinced to go out with Yolanda Saturday night.  Candidates = David, Michael, and Steve are the only possible candidates for finding someone to go out with Yolanda on Saturday night.  Not-Yolanda-Saturday Night = There's no way that Yolanda is going out Saturday night with anyone from our class.  Other-Class = If Yolanda goes out Saturday night, it will be with someone not in our class. 65 (a) claim, (b) argument. Try to work (c) and (d) and (e) on your own. 91 reduces this rate to one pulse per second, and this signal activates the time display mechanism.67 2. Suppose you asked someone to explain why tigers eat meat but not plants, and you got the answer, "Because a zookeeper once told me that's what they eat." You should consider this to be an incorrect answer. Why? a. You asked for some sort of explanation of why tigers eat meat but not plants, yet the answer mentioned nothing about plants. b. You requested an explanation but got an argument instead. c. The argument that a zookeeper said so commits a fallacious appeal to authority. 3. Suppose you have asked your English instructor why Ernest Hemingway won the 1954 Nobel prize for literature, and suppose she answers, "He won because the Swedish Nobel Committee liked his short stories and novels about his own experiences in World War I and in the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s." She is a. explaining but not arguing. b. explaining and arguing. c. only describing. d. describing and arguing. e. only arguing.68 67 a. Description of a quartz crystal oscillator. Not an explanation. b. This is an explanation of how a quartz crystal oscillator works in a clock. The passage also provides some additional description of the inside of a clock that uses the oscillator. c. Like passage (b), this one describes the inner workings of a certain kind of clock. Compared to (b), it is harder to tell whether any explanation is present, but probably one is present. To tell whether an explanation is present, the reader must look at what is said, then try to reconstruct the intentions in the mind of the speaker. If the intentions were to say (1) what causes what, (2) what motivates an action, (3) what purpose something has, or (4) what origin something has, then an explanation is present. Otherwise, there is only description. 68 Betsy Ross is describing but might or might not be explaining, depending on the context. If she just makes this statement out of the blue, she is not offering a cause for some event, nor offering a motivation for what happened. She is simply describing the state of her body or 92 4. When Betsy says "I'm angry," she is reporting information about her state of mind, not arguing for a conclusion. But is she explaining or not explaining here state of mind? 5. The following passage is primarily a. a description b. an argument c. a request About two-thirds of the salt in sea water is sodium chloride. Other substances present are magnesium chloride, sodium sulfate, potassium chloride, and calcium chloride. In the remaining 1 percent of salts are tiny traces of about forty different elements, including iron, uranium, silver, and gold. The percentage of gold is so small that you would have to process tons of seawater to get even a tiny amount. If the salt were taken out of all the seawater in the world, it could cover all the land areas on Earth with a layer 500 feet thick.69 6. The following passage is primarily a. a description b. an argument c. a request The sun's rays do not fall vertically outside the tropics, even at noontime. June 21 in the northern hemisphere is the day of the year with the longest daytime. On this day, the perfectly vertical fall of the sun's rays is farther north than on any other day of the year. This special, farthest north place is actually a line of places around the earth at 23.5° north latitude. It is called the Tropic of Cancer. The day when the sun reaches the Tropic of Cancer is called the solstice, and it begins the summer. Hawaii is the only part of the U.S. that is south of the Tropic of Cancer. 7. Is this passage primarily an argument or an explanation? mind. However, if the context were that she has just been asked to explain why she ripped her new flag to pieces, her response would count as an explanation of this action. 69 Answer (a). The passage is describing the constituents of sea water; it is not giving reasons for some conclusion or asking anything of the reader. 93 Mayfield is guilty because the FBI report says that his fingerprints match those on the countertop beside the cash register. 8. Is this passage primarily an argument or an explanation? The passenger died because the driver was drunk and speeding on the freeway. 9. Take a least two of the following sentences and work them into an argument on the issue of which computer your office should purchase. a. The Apple clone is cheaper than the Cray-Sinclair, although both are within our budget. b. The Cray-Sinclair computer is faster than the Apple clone. c. The Cray-Sinclair won't run Word, and the Apple clone runs all the software we want right now. d. The Cray-Sinclair has a better service contract than the Apple clone. 10. Discuss the following argument. At the very least, describe it and evaluate it. Are some reasons better than others? Drinking alcohol causes kidney disease, traffic accidents, and other serious problems. In addition, the singer Michael Jackson says drinking is an undesirable habit. Your older brother says no one will kiss a person whose breath smells like alcohol. Therefore, no sensible, intelligent person should ever drink. Evaluating Arguments