2: Claims, Issues, and Arguments
- Page ID
- 21963
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left< #1 \right|}\)
\(\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2} \right| \left. #2 \vphantom{#1} \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\braopket}[3]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2}\vphantom{#3} \right| #2 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#3} \left| #3 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#2} \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\qmvec}[1]{\mathbf{\vec{#1}}}\)
\(\newcommand{\op}[1]{\hat{\mathbf{#1}}}\)
\(\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}\)
\(\newcommand{\dfn}[1]{\emph{\textbf{#1}}}\)
Every 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 really 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. For especially complex argumentation, the chapter introduces a diagramming technique that can provide a helpful display of the argument structure.
- 2.1: What is a Statement?
- This page discusses the nature of statements, defining them as evaluable claims that can be true or false, contrasted with non-statements such as questions and commands. It emphasizes the importance of language nuances and context in identifying claims, highlighting the interchangeable use of declarative sentences and the statements they express.
- 2.2: What is an Argument?
- This page explains the technical definition of "argument" in reasoning, highlighting its structure of a conclusion supported by premises. It notes that arguments can exist independently of debate and distinguishes between claims and valid arguments. The page discusses methods for identifying arguments through careful reasoning and presents exercises for practicing the identification and evaluation of conclusions and argument quality.
- 2.3: What is the Issue?
- This page explores the concept of issues in arguments, defining them as uncertainties around claims or actions. It underscores the need for neutral expression of issues, often framed as questions. The distinction between general topics and specific issues is made, highlighting that refutation involves more than simple contradiction. Additionally, exercises are provided for understanding, with a hint at further exploration of these concepts in the following chapter.
- 2.4: What is a Proof?
- This page explores the concept of proof, highlighting the necessity of different standards depending on the situation. It defines proof as a convincing argument backed by adequate evidence, illustrated through a scenario involving a missing blue shirt. The text argues that merely concluding theft without ruling out other possibilities and lacking direct evidence is insufficient. It emphasizes that achieving convincing proof can often be difficult and may remain unattainable.
- 2.5: Indicators
- This page teaches how to recognize and evaluate arguments, distinguishing between identification and quality assessment. It provides key indicators for conclusions and premises while emphasizing the importance of context in understanding their usage. Examples clarify these concepts. Additionally, it covers discount indicators that help address counterarguments, enhancing persuasive effectiveness by acknowledging opposing views.
- 2.6: Rewriting Arguments in Standard Form
- This page explains how to identify the conclusion and premises of an argument, using an example of a tree as a biological machine. It highlights the importance of rewriting arguments in standard form for clarity, involving a clear listing of premises and the conclusion. An exercise on a warning about rattlesnakes reinforces the need for precision in logical reasoning. Key tips include eliminating ambiguities and discount claims to enhance understanding of complex arguments.
- 2.7: Conditionals and the Word If
- This page explores conditional statements in logic, clarifying that "if" doesn't always signal premises or conclusions. It uses examples to show conditionals without "then" and their potential lack of real-world truth. The standard form and the significance of contrapositives in reasoning are highlighted. Additionally, it includes exercises for practicing the identification of true conditionals and their implications.
- 2.8: Deductively Valid and Inductively Strong
- This page explores the goals of argumentation, defining valid arguments as those with conclusions logically derived from true premises. It distinguishes between deductive validity and inductive strength, emphasizing that inductive arguments seek probable conclusions.
- 2.9: Uncovering Implicit Premises
- This page explores implicit premises in arguments, highlighting unstated assumptions that support conclusions. It emphasizes the necessity of these premises for an argument's validity, steering clear of arbitrary assumptions. Examples showcase how perspective influences interpretation. The page underscores the importance of understanding the author's intentions and avoiding equivocation, advocating for the use of common experiences to enhance clarity in reasoning.
- 2.10: Locating Unstated Conclusions
- This page focuses on identifying missing conclusions in arguments, highlighting implicit reasoning's significance. It includes examples like determining conclusions from statements about spiders and humorous comments. The text addresses the difficulty in distinguishing argumentative statements from non-argumentative ones and recognizes the eloquence of effective arguments. Finally, it recommends using the principle of fidelity to clarify whether a conclusion is intentionally presented.
- 2.11: Detecting Obscure Argumentation
- This page explores the intricate process of identifying and evaluating arguments, comparing it to detective work. It highlights that arguments can be multifaceted, often containing several reasons and sub-arguments, with courtroom scenarios as examples. Additionally, it notes that even simple statements can function as both premises and conclusions, emphasizing the need to break down complex arguments into their essential components for clearer understanding of reasoning structures.
- 2.12: Descriptions and Explanations
- This page highlights the importance of language in critical thinking, focusing on the distinctions between descriptions, explanations, and arguments. It emphasizes that descriptions define, explanations clarify the causes of events, and arguments persuade. Using the example of an apple falling, it illustrates how explanations and arguments serve different purposes in understanding phenomena.
- 2.13: Review of Major Points
- This page explains the differences between descriptions, arguments, and explanations. Descriptions present facts, arguments strive to persuade with premises and conclusions, while explanations clarify accepted truths. It emphasizes evaluating arguments for validity and strength, noting the complexity of arguments, including sub-arguments. Additionally, it underscores the importance of self-monitoring to recognize reasoning errors in one’s beliefs.
- 2.14: Glossary
- This page explores the fundamentals of logical argumentation, defining essential terms such as "argument," "premises," "conclusion," and "conditional statement." It differentiates between direct and indirect premises while introducing deductive and inductive arguments and their characteristics. The text also covers implicit premises and indicator terms, along with the structure of standard form arguments to enhance clarity in reasoning.
- 2.15: Exercises
- This page covers various aspects of critical thinking and argument analysis through exercises and discussions on argument structure, validity, and soundness. It emphasizes identifying conclusions, premises, and implicit elements in arguments, alongside evaluating the strength of claims. The content encourages clarity in reasoning, the anticipation of counterarguments, and practical applications in sociopolitical contexts.