Module 2A Flashcards
Determining Argument Structure:
Essential for Evaluation:
- Determining the structure of an argument is a crucial preliminary step for effective evaluation.
- —Reconstructing in Standard Form:
Begin by reconstructing the argument in standard form, using angle brackets to enclose separable statements and underlining inference indicators. - —Handling Omitted Indicators:
If inference indicators are omitted, insert them in square brackets as a reminder of this addition. - —Ignore Non-Argument Material:
Exclude any material in the discourse that doesn’t strictly belong to the argument. - —-Logical vs. Grammatical Structure:
Note that grammatical structure may not always reflect logical structure; be attentive to the logical connections.
Example: Personal Identity Argument:
Original Argument:
Personal identity must be distinguished from bodily identity. The body can persist after the person’s extinction, as seen in persistent vegetative state cases. If personal and bodily identity were the same, survival after the body’s death would be impossible.
- Bracketing and Underlining:
(a) <Personal>. First of all, (b) <the>, as is shown by (c) <the>. And secondly, (d) <if personal and bodily identity were the same thing, we could not hope to survive the death of the body>.</the></the></Personal> - Standardized Version:
c. There are cases of persistent vegetative state
So (or therefore, hence, consequently, etc.)
b. The body can persist after the extinction of the person
Hence (or thus, so, it follows that, etc.)
a. Personal identity is distinguishable from bodily identity
Comparison of Procedures:
- Procedure in Govier’s Approach:
1. Use of Numbers:
Govier uses numbers (e.g., 1, 2, 3) to represent statements in the order of their occurrence in the standardized version.
- Logical Order:
Numbers are assigned based on logical structure rather than the original grammatical order. - Disadvantage:
Numbers can only be assigned after determining the argument’s structure, which might be a later step in the process.
Procedure Recommended Here:
1. Use of Letters:
This approach uses letters (e.g., a, b, c) to represent statements immediately in the order of their occurrence.
- Grammatical Order:
Letters are assigned based on the original grammatical order, making it easier to use during the initial working. - Advantage:
Helps in the standardizing process, offering an immediately intelligible abbreviation for each statement.
Can be assigned almost immediately, aiding in the early stages of determining structure.
Overall Comparison: Comparison of Procedures:
- Equivalent Representations:
Both approaches result in equivalent representations of an argument. - Advantages and Disadvantages:
Govier’s approach provides clarity in numbering but delays assignment until after structural analysis.
The recommended approach offers immediate assignment for easier use during the initial working. - Arbitrariness of Choice:
The use of letters rather than numbers is arbitrary and chosen here for clarity in distinguishing the two versions.
Procedure for Replacing Modal Inference Indicators:
- Identify Modal Expressions: Locate modal expressions (e.g., “must be,” “can,” “could,” etc.) inside statements that act as inference indicators.
- Replace with Standard Inference Indicators: Replace the modal expressions with standard conclusion indicators (e.g., “so,” “therefore,” “thus,” etc.) placed between statements.
Example:
Original Argument:
Since (a) <old>, (b) <they>.</they></old>
Replacement:
a. Old people have more experience than young people.
So
b. Old people are less prone than young people to error.
Standard Form Requirement:
Ensure that inference indicators always appear between statements in standard form, not inside them. This maintains clarity in the structure of the argument.
Treating Conditionals and Similar Sentences: 2 ..EXAMPLE
- Assign a Single Identifier: Use a single letter or number to represent the entire conditional sentence. This identifier covers both the antecedent and the consequent of the conditional.
- Explanation: The decision to use a single identifier for the whole conditional is based on the nature of conditional sentences and similar constructions. The idea is to capture the holistic relationship between the antecedent and consequent.
Example:
Original Conditional:
If (a) <we>, (b) <the little devil won't stop picking his nose>.</we>
Single Identifier Assignment:
c. No matter what we say to him, the little devil won’t stop picking his nose.
Extend to Other Similar Sentences:
Apply the same approach to other types of sentences with a similar structure, ensuring that they also receive a single identifier for the entire sentence.
Maintain Consistency
Consistency in assigning identifiers helps in standardizing arguments and maintaining clarity in the representation of sentences.
Completeness in Assigning Letters:
- General Rule: Ensure that each assigned letter corresponds to a complete statement or can be transformed into a complete statement without altering its meaning.
- No Less: Every assigned letter should represent a statement in its entirety. This means avoiding the separation of components that form a complete statement, such as antecedents and consequents of conditionals.
- No More: Exclude words, phrases, or expressions like ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘I firmly believe that…’, ‘In addition…’, etc., from receiving individual letters. These should not be treated as standalone statements.
- Consider Noun Phrases: Take into account that noun phrases, like ‘The death of Socrates,’ might need letters if they function as statements within the argument, similar to ‘Socrates died.’
Example: Completeness in Assigning Letters:
Original Sentence:
I firmly believe that (a) <the>, and (b) <the>.</the></the>
Assigned Letters:
c. I firmly believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and the world will continue to turn.
Completeness in Assigning Letters:
Rationale:
This rule aims to maintain clarity and consistency in the assignment of letters, ensuring that each identifier corresponds to a distinct and complete unit of meaning within the argument.
Handling Conjunctions and Pronouns in Standardization: CONJUNCTIONS
Conjunctions:
- Rule: Split conjunctions in standardized versions, assigning separate identifiers to individual conjuncts.
Example:
Original Sentence:
(a) <John went to the store and (b) <Mary>>.
Standardized Version:
a. John went to the store.
b. Mary stayed at home.</Mary>
Handling Conjunctions and Pronouns in Standardization: PRONOUNS
Pronouns:
- Govier’s Advice: Avoid using pronouns in standardizing arguments to reduce ambiguity.
- Rationale: Ambiguous pronoun references can lead to equivocation and hinder the clarity of the argument. Standardization without pronoun replacement may eliminate disambiguating contextual clues.
Handling Conjunctions and Pronouns in Standardization:
Example Demonstrating Pronoun Replacement:
Original Sentence:
I saw a cat, and it was sitting on a fence. It looked cute.
Standardized Version:
a. I saw a cat.
b. The cat was sitting on a fence.
c. The cat looked cute.
