Chapter 2 Flashcards
Reconstructing an argument
Identifying all its different parts, then spelling these out clearly in a standard form that allows us to see exactly how they work
Premise
A claim presented by an argument in support of its conclusion
Support is equal to…
Premise
Conclusion
The final proposition in any argument, supported by its premises
Thesis is equal to…
Conclusion
Conclusion
The conclusion of one argument can form the premise of another. A conclusion is defined by its place at the end of an argument.
Argument
An argument can have only one conclusion, and also have many intermediate conclusions along the way.
Extraneous material
Information that is not relevant to the argument and should be left out as we carefully clarify each premise and conclusion by rewriting them.
Assumption
Something relevant to an argument that has been taken for granted by the person presenting it, rather than spelled out.
The Point of Reconstructing an Argument
Logically restating an argument ensures understanding of it yourself. Excluding extraneous material often reveals flaws or gaps in someone’s reasoning not easily revealed. Forces us to identify the key assumptions that it relies on, but might not have been made explicit, and then we can analyze these.
Extended Argument
An argument whose final conclusion is supported by one or more premises that are themselves intermediate conclusions, supported by previous premises.
STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO RECONSTRUCTING ARGUMENTS
- Apply the Principle of Charity. 2. Identify Final Conclusion. 3. Identify the Explicit Premises. 4. Identify Any Implicit Premises. 5. Distinguish Between Linked & Independent Premises
Principle of Charity
The assumption that someone else is truthful and reasonable, and that their argument deserves stating in its strongest form.
Principle of Charity
Begin by assuming that someone is: 1. Telling the truth rather than aiming to deceive us. 2. Sufficiently well informed to know what they are talking about. 3. Presenting a coherent and reasonable account.
Prejudice
Holding a belief without consideration of the evidence for or against it; deciding in advance of hearing an argument what you believe to be the case.
Straw Man
An absurd simplification of someone else’s position that is obviously wrong or stupid, and that is only expressed so that it can easily be defeated.
Questions to ask to help spot a final conclusion
- What is the author ultimately trying to prove? 2. What is the message you are expected to take away from reading this? 3. Is a final decision, verdict or recommendation being offered? 4. Is a particular point being repeated or emphasized?
Explicit Premises
All the claims that someone has set out in support of their conclusion.
Implicit Premises
Are not spelled out by the person stating an argument, but are assumed as part of their reasoning and need to be included in reconstruction.
Implicit Conclusions
Are not spelled out but are assumed as a part.
Why identify implicit premises?
Done so we can understand as precisely as possible what is being claimed - allowing precise (as much as possible) critical analysis.
Linked Premises
Support a conclusion when taken together, but not individually. They rely on one another.
Independent Premises
Support a conclusion individually and don’t rely upon each other. They reinforce one another.
Practical Guide to Challenging Assumptions
- Is this argument moving too simplistically from the particular to the general, or assuming that one thing must be like another without a good reason? 2. Is an assumption being made about one thing being the cause of another when, in fact, this is not obviously true? 3. Are any particular beliefs about what is right and wrong, or natural and unnatural, being used to support a conclusion without being made explicit? 4. Does this argument assume that the future must follow the same pattern as the past without providing evidence or considering differences in circumstances? 5. Has what you’re reading begun by assuming the thing it is supposed to be proving?
