f e writing and rhetoncal wntmg.
..
.
. th
h
1
Arguments
IV As its name Reconstructing
suggests, descriptive writing is
wntmg m which 1e
ho;h m:J
describes some event or situation. The author makes no ent
attempt
. lSme ntse .11 7
No nar gu
s from.to
gum
Ar
ng
shi
gui
tin
Dis
IL
arguments
of any Distinguishing
particular claim, which
is the key from
ofnon-arguments
(3/22/11)
newspaper article contains primarily or excluslVely. de,scnpuve
l de 'b
5.2
ple
Exam
ds of#3 (study these!).
passages
we read
no article
arguments,
or contain
attempts
convey
to the reader
factscontain
about the
s
e
e
s kin
•toMany
g the variouto
posted
solutions
HW
• tI’ve
id confusin
to avo
ort an
on
est
lat
the
t
bu
,
me
cnpste dm1ght grve some re evae on the
ho did mostly
what lef
when
and
where
itvehappened,
and
gu
des
dis
are
en
g
oft
itin
wr
ha
non-argumentative
material.
ive
ls
tat
ria
en
ito
um
ed
arg
tist
th
Your
onfused wi
ow n sur ve y
after yo urThe
en argument.
Evof
nt.
rre
ho
ab
ly
inform'ation.
There
is
usually
little
in
the
way
lar
cu
rti
pa
s
wa
ue
1
iss
h
fla g-b urn ing
.on th
.
, yo u co me up
Thursday
•HW #4. . is due
the de cismionthe
ain st
ag
ly
ing
lm
he
attempt
to
prove
or
establish
that
things
happened
way t e artrc e
erw
ov
rs
de
rea
ur
:J
yo stories and other similar passages simply report/state
ho;h m
sh ow•ed
e
News
a
m which
is wn tm g than
...
l.
writin
ria
ito
usual
(and
on
ch.
4)
ed
s
lou
•gLonger
rid icu says that they happened that way.
s simply
thi
th
he
t po
describes·
wi
.
e
lS
.
pro . sed
has
sh
Bu
t
en
sid
bunch
of
propositions.
These
are
descriptive
passages.
Pre
d
an
e
e au tho r makes no att em pt .to
lin
dra
' So
. ha
. wt h the
Even
ifme
thewharticle
onvea to
top1c
at we argue about , it may not con am an
ere we1s
t.2
of
tha
key• Quiz #4 is next Thursday
do ing jus t
argument.
'b
de
l
ve
pu
scn
or excluslVely. de,
(actual excerpt from 1989 Rochester newspaper):
•Example
This
will
be
re-do
of
the
last
quiz
(on
chs.
3&4)
•
e
e
Example
5.1
taken does co nta in an argument,
is
le
s
mp
e
exa
icl
s
art
thi
ich
wh
m
s ab ou t the
fro
ter
Al tho ug h the let
e re eva of your two scores
tho r's dislike of the newsyou
e somhigher
auretardFd
grvthe
the
s
eal
rev
d m1ght
y
, angive
ull
cef
for
It
ha pp en•edI’ll
t.
no
Prosecutors
have
decided
to
retry
johnny
Penry,
a
man
es
passage, by itself, do
s
thi
e. However, there
cas
e
s
Th
thi
t.
in
en
ion
um
cis
's destruck down ast mon
urt
Co
me
death
sentence
for
a
murder
and
rape
was
pre
Su
little in the way of arg
the
ng
rti
po
sup
pa pe r's editorial
e
way t e art
no tew ort hy is the au tho r's
t ishave
ha
ed m the
W
n.
isio
dec
ngs ha pp en
Supreme
Court.
Without
a
retrial,
the
state
would
the
t
Starting
today:
Chapter
5 rc
ins
tha•t thi
aga
e
sag
um en t in this pas
is no arg
t .
sentence
to life imprisonment
Penry,
33, "ab
washosentence
o us! ' These
rre nt, " andm"ri dic ulo
y.
d,"
wa
t
ste
tha
sgu
d
"di
ne
t,"
ftis
ap pe • (Charitably) Reconstructing
"le
Arguments
as
h
suc
am an
selection of words
e fact tha t the readers of
Th
t.
en
um
ue ab ou t , it ma y no t co n
arg
arg
an
s
. t h at we
res
exp
1c
n't
do
y
slaying
of
Pamela
Carpenter,t2d2.
the
high
court
which
said jurors arg
should
bu t the
words
• Recognizing arguments vs non-arguments
um en t
are powerfulThe
an
of
rt
sentence was vaca
e
'
.
b
pa
be
y
ma
on
isi
dec
the
sed
po
op
ly
ng
mi
hel
erw
ov
r told that his history of mental impairment andin thi s apas
pape
the news
have
been
use
. (It is
• Zooming in on arguments in a passage
sage.
ressed
exp
y
arl
cle
t
no
is
t
en
um
arg
t
tha
t in prison instead. Experts say Penry hast e sreasonmg
ision, bulife
the dec
have
warranted
r.)
• Seeking the strongest argument expressed againstability
be considered later in thi chapte
l
wil
ich
wh
,
ter
1
let
the
of
t
res
the
expressed in of a 7-year-old.
n
d rhetorical writing are no t
an
ve,
pti
cri
etry joh nn y Penry, a ret ard Fd ma
des
ve,
ati
ent
um
arg
en
n
The differences betwe
in more tha n on e
reted 3
erp
int
be
an d rap e wa s str uc k do wn ast mo
bly
usi
pla
can
e
sag
Reconstructing
Arguments
pas
a
es of t h e clacts concernmg
metim
· · a specific legal matter.
It does
ar-cut. So
y clesimply
Reconstructing
Arguments 2
h er dsec
.tio
d ns
d
This
article
states
some
olutel
abs
uld ha ve
oth
d
an
ve
ati
ent
rial, the sta te wo
urp
arg
·
are
t
tha
ns
tio
sec
ns
tai
o
con
ay
one ess for any conclusion about what the. pros;cutors.
es argument
metiman
not
contain
y. So
wa
t Penry, 33 , wa s sen ten ce m
for is reasons. If the au tho r proknon-arguments
Distinguishing
arguments
from
to loothe
ng
thi
key
e
Th
l.
ica
tor
rhe
or
·
this
case.
It
does
not
give
an
argument
about
ments o sim
appply
ymg
ve
pti
tha t are descri
Distinguishing
arguments
sho uld non-arguments
jur ors from
asserteing tha t
d
sai
ich
to
wh
sed
urt
po
co
op
h
as
hig
e,
tru
the
is
.
ent
d2
b
e sta
.
e tha t som
'
to believpeople.
to sretarded
There
is tem
a hint in the last
anf in the statement
vides reason
e
lie
be
his
of
th
.
e
eng
us
str
a
the
g
bin
d
cri
an
t
des
Descriptive
and
rhetorical
writing
can
be
very
good
writing.
en
y
onall
•ent is truCourt
l im pa irm
by sta
thetem
Supreme
the case. One can surm1se nta
at ins
tide
ru en
e t
e or eminotideciding
y of me nta
the
arg um
anoun;
co
e
Other
passages
are
rhetorical
in
nature.
mg
sag
son
pas
•
rea
the
e
n
st
the
,
ha
ent
nry
tem
Pe
· ieve the sta
b ecause the jury
·
had not
some wr
1mporins tea d. Experts say
readers to
wasbel
Improper
, . been to ds
. iting.
._
ouragingsentence
encPenrv's
orthat
of
kin
er
oth
to)
or
eri
inf
(or
to
or
eri
sup
no t descriptive/rhetorical
is detail
g good
tant Ar
info;mation.
But
so
is provided here that 1twriting
1s best to
regard
art1pitinlittle
But,
even
need
not
e wrvery
ntativ
gu•me
descri
dth1s
an
al
ric
eto
Rh
g.
itin
wr
of
ds
These
aren’t
reports,
but
they
aren’t
arguments
either.
kin
•
tha n oth er
rpo
de
asply
a simple
description
of se
aarguments.
situation.
.
..
.
ferent puany
has atodif
aim
express
sim
It
es
do
It
r.
tte
d
ma
r, for example, this
d
.
al
de
d
leg
nsi
Co
ific
h
nt.
pec
rta
·
po
·
im
d
an
s
,
a
ive
mg
cat
c
vo ways very much like
, pro
h e lacts co nc ern
writing
is in
some
wntmg, s1r:ce
effective
iting can be
tive wrRhetorical
e:
nc
de
en
117
ep
rs.
Ind
s
uto
of
ent
s;c
clarat
No nar gumpassage:exc
at the. pro IL Dis tinnon-argumentative,
rhetorical
m thea De
ab ou t whnon-descriptive,
it erp
does
express
point
ofion
view about a topic. However, 1t differs
t fro
• Example:
Arg um ent s from
nc lus ion
gui shi ng
Famous
example:
The Declaration of Independence
e
g
•
ym
p
ap
o
nts
me
the
t
ou
ab
t
arg um en
writing
in
that
it
contains
nothing
designed to show the truth o.f Its
o Vl:le
Ex am ple 5.3
an
in the
hin
s aEx
simply asserts the author's views, perhaps
forcefully
5.2 last
amt ple
me n are cre ate d eq ua l, tha t
tha t all and
oun; ru e
t,
en
tide
vid
f-e
at
sel
se
be
m1
to
sur
ths
can
tru
e
se
On
the
e.
consider
theldfollowmg excerpt from a letter about tai
a June
up
.
W e ho
g the cas
d._-me , bu t the latest on e on the
por
cer n un ali en ab le Rights, tha t
ste
1m
th
gu
e
wi
dis
som
or
.
en
eat
oft
to
Cr
ve
ir
en
ha
be
s
the
t
ial
by
no
tor
d
d
edi
.
ha
we
,
do
tist
·
en
lef
ure jury
are
the yburning
is a form of political "speech" andit isoftherefore
Fmt
sec ure
to the
r b ecauseYoth
es s.-Th atby
Even after yo ur ow n sur ve y that flag
Ha pp inprotected
nt.
rre
ho
rsu
ab
pu
rly
the
art1
ula
d
s
tic
an
th1
y
par
s
ert
ard
wa
Lib
reg
ue
e,
to
iss
Lif
st
be
ing
are
1s
urned here tha t 1t
g-bvid
am on g the
Amendment
to se
the Constitution.
l isflapro
ain st. the de cis ion , yo u co me up
am on g Me n, de riv ing the ir jus t
ly . ag
ing
ted
lm
titu
he
ins
erw
are
ov
ts
rs
en
de
rea
rnm
ur
ve
.
yo
Go
d
,
.
shon.we
the se rights
uatio
,-T ha t wh en ev er an y Form of
ed
rn
ve
go
the
of
t
with this rid icu lou s edi tor ial . ... wn tm g, s1r:ce
en
ns
co
the
po sed
po we rs from
e
mu ch likwe
is the Right of the Pe op le
it
ways veryme
line an d Pre sid en t Bush has pro
ds,
the
en
w
se
dra
the
to
of
ve
e
ha
tiv
uc
str
ere
de
s
wh
So
en t be co me
Go ve rnm
its permission
lay ing with
en· t,Reprinted
, ins titu, te Jne
t.2ver, 1t differs
ve'rnm
thawe
L "Retarded
Man to Be Retried,"it,Rochester
Times-Umon,
u lYw12Go
, l989
P· 8A
jus tHo
topic.
ou tdoaing
to
d
an
sh
oli
ab
to
or
er
alt
to
o V l:l e
from the Associated Press.
rs in su ch form, as to
we
po
its
ng
izi
an
org
d
an
es
designed to sho w the tru th o.f Its
ipl
nc
fou nd ati on on su ch pri
taken does co nta in an argument,
is
le
mp
exa
s
thi
ect the ir Safety an d Ha pp ine ss.
eff
ich
to
wh
m
ely
d
lik
fro
an
st
y
ter
mo
let
cefull
m
h the
see
ll
thosugfor
sha
sAlhap
per
m
the
. aut ho r's dislike of the new
e no t. It up
forcefully reveals the
r ab ou t a Junes
Philosophy 101
tr uc t th1at . ar gu
m en t, th en on e c
y 1 en tr fy m g its
en
o re co ns
.
,
c
.
.
e
II.
Distinguishing
..
th
I
g
.
y
in
ill disconc!usiOJ1 t Js Reconstructing
s. We wArgumen
ea sy to id en tif
case
m en ts are surprisArguments
e
gu
es
Reconstructing
4
Arguments
5
ar
th
n
m
gu
n
e
Jo
th
us
.
ng
e
yi
on
rl
s un deno argument for the conclusion
ic
tail in h
sa nddo have those rights. Suppose, for
rovides
th ouwe
co nc lu si on s in deExample
ughly ten that
ter bn ef ly lo ok in g at
ro
af
ng
d
n
yi
ha
iO
tif
ct
e
en
se
w
Id
:
xt
ng
ss
ne
lli
cu
e
5.6
pa
t
ap
merely that someone denied 78
14
e 18 ,7
xztmJJle,
that
endowed
by their creator with the e m or e example.
er e w erwere
, thpeople
19
In
.
rty
fo
d
on
Distinguishing arguments from non-arguments orical or
ha
sh
iti
e Br
Thto
.ght
at
th
In
. any argument
nsfrom
gu
nd
pursue happiness.
You
can't
find
here
for
the
conclusion
that
ha
E. looks
atena fish
tank
ith
w
Distinguishing
arguments
non-arguments
id stsaofs rh"eth
d
lle
e mand
ki
e
in th
e passages there are Gupp.
m
so
dd
hi
In
ts
ur pe rc en t w er
en
fo
m
yd
gu
xt
ol
ar
s
ar
If ethat
ten-gallon
a uariu y ' plTe at
n te n ye assertion that we have such a right. This
we do have such
a right. You
anreeloquent
r r..
ch ild
O ne ;tmJDle .is thefish.
was
lette
byfind
5.2ten-gall<
entir
e
am
tiv
Ex
rip
ch
sc
hi
de
w
ex
n:
killings w ith ha nd gu ns
d
no
ha
ns
ia
IS
too
crowded.
Therefore
aqum
forty
ad
The
example
I
gave
before
of
a
rhetorical
passage
was
an
an
C
•
e
Th
. lend itself to our method of argument analysis.
ort of passage,
l agesnot
rs of aldoes
.
lle
kitherefore,
dSome
'
anum IS too crow
descriptive
passages
can describe
things inThe
ways
that pas-extractedincomplete
ritish ha
•
.3
nd
sa
ou
th
ty
excerpt
from
an
actual
letter
to
the
editor.
Let’s
Other
passages
powerfully
convey
purely
factual
information.
following
en
tw
an
or e th
d mnaturally
w e ha
may
“suggest”
arguments
—
without
expressing
any:
is dear—that
of these
l in here?.
5. 7the wholeItletter
by Adam Smith in 1981.
age is an excerpt from an article about handguns written
ampleat
Exlook
areeach
there
arguments
st
examp
an ar
ju
e
ag
ss
pa
e
th
in
t
(or conclusion) that the speakes contam"
bu
l,
ro
nt
.
.
gume
co
n
gu
r
fo
le
e
op
gu
Pe
the
to ar
of
ssay Example
ill
eat
W
st
5.4
w
al
llo
tic
is
Fo
at
st
e
e for th
sons (or premises)
in its favorh are
to establis
.
ment. N or does he argu
h
b
e
n argu
of
th
d
y
te
on
an
us
e
st
of
sg
on
fti
1
d
h
le
n
te
our
Some of the crime
statistics
underlying
e tr ut the gun arguments are surprising ... ,
of
Y
e
th
e
t
av
ish
ut
ment,
then
one
can
begin
t
.
en
a passag
bl
ta
e,
es
m
to
e
ag
bh
ss
.
this pa
in
ey
rt
rv
su
as
e
n
w
o effo
(h
ow
on
si
ng
ur
ci
b
lli
conc!usiOJ1.
I
.
o
reconstruct
that
argum
yo
Some of the statistics
are de
merely
as appa we had roughly ten thousand
ur nm g de
Evento identify the c
scribesappalling:
he
a
ch
hi
w
.
t
Js
easy
1
.
.
s,
ct
fa
up
e
s
e
m
so
tio nshandgun
you co m
ith1978, there were 18,714
your re ad er cuss Identifying conclusions
deaths last year.
The British
had
iO n, in
s SmIn
osdetail
ticforty.
de
tis
e
sta
th
e
st
m
Th
ga
in
h
one
usJon
m
ey
th
says th at Sixty-four percent were ld
itorial
g; he
Americans
murdered.
killed
be with handguns. In that
ppallin
ith this ridiculous edone
ou
W
sh
ng
hi
et
moreurexample.
t e. next sectiOn
.
m
so
at
th
ob
ng killings with handguns by children ten years old
ki
is
in
th
in
n
d
oi
.b
av
g
to
fla
e as walking
at
rd
en
th
same
year,
we
had
more
ha
sc
e
ob
se
It is
u
as
et
yo
m
us
't
so
-J
an
at
eC
th
en
sc
on
si
lu
nc
on? passages there
r the co
re foBritish
et atInnosome
m of
t hethe
killers
of
allplages.
The Canadians had
and
than
had
ar gu m en
is as freedo
th
noyounger
do w n Main Stre
d
nd
ke
fe
y
here's
na
de
ap
u
t
yo
are
arguments
hidden
in the
no
es
One
descriptive
do
ysismore than twenty thousand.3
anal
pr ob ab ly
m en twe
ar guyear;
579
had
ex;tmJDle .is the entire letter r..
et ho d of last
r mhomicides
ex pr es si on also? You extracted.
in, ou
e ,.
non:
re w e ha ve to dr aw th m e
es id en t Bush ha s
he
Pr
ew
m
So
in
ed
is
ra
osegun control, but in the passage just
H
to thfor
cs rela
Smith goes on in tthis
toted
argue
topiessay
os ed do in g ju st th at Example 5.7
hi m for re sp on di ng to
op
pr
g
in
e people arguing ab ou
ut
exeche argue for the statistical statee at
y ofdoes
titutionalitNor
5
cons
uoted he
does
not
present
argument.
will of all pa tr io tic
re , to his ow n ou tr ag
an d an
e
su
th
its
er
am
m
'
e
th
an
t
ou
ab
e
tgu
t, if any,tonaestablish the truth of any of
whapassage
Follow Will of the People
e ab ou
argu
th1s de ci si on ?
ments heflamakes.
He
makes
no
effort
in t this
le
op
Pe
g.
in
rn
bu
g
d
an d of
te
obi" .
ni
U
e
ve an
in th
s haYour
rs
er
de
ld
ur
ho
m
e
y
leftist
hfollow th e w.ill of th e pe op le
fic
an
of
hese claims.
He
mentions
some
facts,
which
he
describes
as
appalling
(he
m
ur
so
O
e
to
ar
n
e
Jo
er
at
th
!g
g.
hy
in
w
t
do
b
h
ave often d 1sgusted
he is .
er,
rgue ab ou
owev
r. Hthat
numbe
d th at is ex ac tly w ha t b urnmg decision was
th at
bh
me,
ut
t e
an
ce
oesn't argue
that
they
are
appalling;
he
says
they
The
statistics
Smith
du
re
to
ne
do
be
d
ything, co ul
ca n' t tellthat something should be
, yo u thinking
usavoid
your readers
Even
Th
.
ts
en
m
mentions es
aredo
indeed
striking.
It
is
hard
to
gu
. .
ar
n
ai
nt
. a
co
t
n'
ou
ok
e exampl
ab
lo
to
e
an
ve
editorial burnmg de
the
deos
d th
verythis ridiculous
You ha
siOn an
Reconstructing
Arguments
6
Reconstructing
Arguments
7
no t.argument
Clgamst
one to change
things.
But
there's
here for the conclusion
that somet or no
is obviouslyWith
en
or
m
th
gu
au
gar
fla
r's
an
e
tte
th
ns
le
t
ai
nt
co
l gr yyou see thatprflag
th er it
he
ok to see analysis does not apply
t ge
t loargument
th in
. vYou m usof
hing shoulddibe
done.
Again,
our
pic. method
su pp or te d it M os t of thCan't
ely ex esse.burn
to
at
at
th
th
al
an is r,obw ith ou t gi
of
on
et te r mer
a
Jt
e
on
ed
si
s
us
sc
e
.
th
·
.
d
a
ur e of
th
naked
down
Main Street at noon? .J,;
scene--Just
Identifying
Conclusions
of Arguments
Premises
Arguments
en t in
th at
lusionof
er, two of a
ing r eaIdentifying
irectly
to thisso
passage.
on. There is an ar gu m
rong. Howev
su pp or t the concexpression
si
w
lu
to
as
nc
w
ns
co
so
On
e
lsi
m
eC
of
de
t
or
also?
You
probably
you
n su pp
guments Th e secon parag h ggests an ar gu m en t defend
youeasily
thinkimagine
you’vepeople
got an
argument
expressed
intoa passage,
whose t
ar
at
•s reIfcan
nt
hi
One
arguing
about
topics
related
those
raised
in
th
hs
ap
gr
ra
pa
·
su
e
p
rahave
asons.
" d who
. the ,.it sh ou ld be .
lude you’ll
Somewhere
we
.draw
nc
two guidelines:
· • Ask
ltofor
firstSome
· rs
is " bare
eand
g
Th
s
in
.
rn
ts
en
bu
m
g
xamples
5.1-5.4.
People
argue
about
the
merits
constitutionality
of
executing
an
first
need
to
identify
its
conclusion.
yourself:
what
the
author’s
reasons
believing
the Presi
gu
fla
ar
e
at
n
IS th at me
en
th
ai
n
sc
nt
s!o
o
e
co
U
rs
do
ne
em
co
at
pr
proposed
doing
just
that
H
e
th
es
.
f passag
ie
br
e
m
Th
al
h
s,
s.
ap
ou
gr
obvi People argue about what, if any, nat-ou t1awe d . The last para
ar
mentally retarded criminals
and
is, perhaphim
an patriotic
ill beburning.
ts all
gges
emofwflag
su
th
the
will
of
so
e
in
ts
t.
en
m
en
m
gu
ar
gu
e
th
conclusion
(or
what
reasons
are
they
offering)?
d
fl
an
"ll
5 at this is "t h
bu rn
pl
ed todecision?
rale rights
we have. People argue about why there are so many murders in the Unitedth at pe op le sh ou ld n' t be allowth1s
' am sure,
ason IS .than
W lto
e
d the re
an
s
Ask yourself: what’s the main point of the passage?
ag
•
h
. passage,
d multiple
an arholders
tates and about what, if anything, could be done to reduce that number. However,of th e pe op le•."If there are
beoffice
this ou tb ur st,
in
the
toarguments
of. careful
em
td stbe
se
s
e mobi"
Our
have
an
oe
t
m
nt
ne
t
x_
us
gu
m
en
"K
,
ys
sa
d
ff controversial
f that isenexactly
Obe
Conclusions
need
claims
—you
they
cantell
y don't
lt. is doing.!gatJon to follow th
ed, Panot
he passages •quoted
in these
examples
contain arguments.
Thus,
can't
s to he
what
B. Brib
analys1
pl y ou r m et ho dand
0 ar
m t associated
ca n ap
gutheir
we
an
politician na m ed Ken
t."
up
rr
to
group
premises
with
conclusions.
co
are
ia
liticof
l po
y the
topic
of
ann an
essay
whether
it ns
contains
an argument or not. You have to look
al
d
ia
ic
be
about
any
sort
topic.
lit
po
a
's
he
eyond the topic to the nature of the discussion of that topic. You must look to see
indicators.
try tovery
insert
• Look for premise
letter's
author is[Or,
obviously
an premise
abou
Longergiven
passages
may of
contain
multiple arguments.
can be in a
89
19
12
ly
Ju
f there are• reasons
in support
some conclusion.
There is an It
argument
n,
that
th. 7A
l gry
t the flag-bur
edJtonal
Ttines-Unio it Most of 'p
ster supported
t, Roche
.
Nellis
'
editor, Robertand
e
indicators,
see
if
the
passage
still
reads
smoothly.]
th
to
r
tte
ing
r
·
e
etter
merely
expresse th
Le
4.
4.
iece of writing
if
reasons. of a passage, if you think there
22-2structure
usefulonly
toriloutline
pp.the
81,includes
19it
easons to support the conclusion that th d . .
s
Handguns," Esquire, Ap
th
Let's look next at some brief passages that do contain arguments. The first two
e paragraphs
hint at
arguments
Th
de eClsiOn
are implicit,
and
must be
articulated
by us. was wr
• Some premises
are multiple conclusions being argued for in the passage.
· ·
·
e secon parag h
assages are extremely simple and the arguments in them will be obvious.
"
rap suggest
premrse rs that flag burning is " b
ounclear
scene and
whos
l .
be
stated
in
obscure
or
ways.
Our
• Premises can
Look for conclusion indicators (“therefore”, “hence”, “thus”).
1
•
out awe d . The last paragraph al
e cone Us!on
Example 5.5
h
so suggests an ar
Th
t at people
shouldn't
be allowed
to burn
fl andgument.
e
reconstructions
should
make
such
premises
clear
precise.
Try
to
insert
a
conclusion
indicator,
and
see
if
the
passage
•
While discussing a politician named Ken B. Bribed, Pay Off says, "Ken must
of the people."
d
ags and the reason IS
d
oes
seem
to
be
an
ar premises.
. h
be corrupt.
Aftersmoothly
all, he's a (as
politician
and all politicians
are corrupt."
still reads
an argument
for that claim).
Sometimes
statements
in
a
passage
are
unnecessary
•
an we can apply our method 0 f
gux_nent m t e m
argument analys1s to lt.
.J,;
• Sometimes conclusions are not explicitly stated, or they are
stated
an unclear
imprecise
(or
Adam Smith,
"Fifty in
Million
Handguns,"or
Esquire,
April 1981,
pp. even
22-24.
misleading!) way.
• Some stated premises may be irrelevant to the conclusion
(we may omit these if it makes the argument stronger).
Reconstructing Arguments 8
General vs Specific Premises
• Premises can be either general or specific.
• Specific premises are claims about individual objects.
• e.g., Socrates is a man.
• General premises involve “quantifying” over groups of
objects. There are various types of “quantifiers”:
• Some, many, most, all, none, almost all, every, any.
• Often, specific and general premises are combined in
arguments. We’ve seen examples from predicate logic.
• We will reconstruct general premises in standard form:
• All As are Bs.
• Most As are Bs.
• Some As are Bs.
Reconstructing Arguments 9
General vs Specific Premises
• Here are some examples (to convert into standard form):
• If something is a bird, then it can fly.
• Form: All As are Bs.
• The only people who got an “A” did it by bribing the prof.
• Form: All As are Bs.
• A person is a student only if that person is registered.
• Form: All As are Bs.
• Lying is always risky.
• Form: All As are Bs.
• In most cases, honesty is the best policy.
• Form: Most As are Bs.
Reconstructing Arguments 10
Reconstructing Arguments 11
Adding Implicit Premises
• We have three basic principles to help guide us in the addition
of implicit premises (when it is clear that this is needed).
• Faithfulness:
• (PF) Add implicit premises that are consistent with the
Adding Implicit Premises
• We have three basic principles to help guide us in the addition
of implicit premises (when it is clear that this is needed).
• Faithfulness:
• (PF) Add implicit premises that are consistent with the
intention of the author of the argument.
• Charity:
• (PCI) Add implicit premises that are reasonable to accept
rather than implicit premises that are obviously false.
• Generalization:
• (PG) When adding a generalization as an implicit premise,
add a true wide generalization rather than a true narrow one, and
add a true narrow generalization rather than a false wide one.
intention of the author of the argument.
• Charity:
• (PCI) Add implicit premises that are reasonable to accept
rather than implicit premises that are obviously false.
• Generalization:
• (PG) When adding a generalization as an implicit premise,
add a true wide generalization rather than a true narrow one, and
add a true narrow generalization rather than a false wide one.
ontextual information to help you decide which implicit premises to add.
Reconstructing
Arguments
12
To illustrate another
problem that can arise
when adding a generalization
as an
licit Adding
premise, consider
this example:
Implicit
Generalizations (Example)
Example 5.12
Bar X. Am is a recent law-school graduate who has just been interviewed for
a position in a law firm. The interviewer says, "Bar will be a successful
lawyer. She's smart and articulate, and she likes to argue."
a first pass,
we mightand
trypremises
the following
reconstruction:
easy
to identifY
the conclusion
of this argument
and come up with
• As
first attempt at its reconstruction:
1. Bar is smart.
Argument 5.12
2. Bar is articulate.
1. Bar is smart.
3. Bar likes to argue.
2. Bar is articulate.
-----------------------3. Bar likes
4. to
Barargue.
will be a successful lawyer.
4. Bar will be a successful lawyer.
• But, this reconstruction is missing a generalization.
• What generalization should we add here?
Reconstructing Arguments 14
Reconstructing Arguments 13
Adding Implicit Generalizations (Example)
• The first thing to try would be something like this:
1. Bar is smart.
2. Bar is articulate.
3. Bar likes to argue.
4. All people who are smart, articulate, and like to argue
will be successful lawyers.
-----------------------5. Bar will be a successful lawyer.
• At least the argument is valid now (assuming Bar is a person).
• But, the generalization we added is too wide to be plausible.
• Why is it clear that this generalization is false?
Reconstructing Arguments 15
Adding Implicit Generalizations (Example)
Adding Implicit Generalizations (Example)
• This suggests the following amended reconstruction:
• Why not go even narrower?
1. Bar is smart.
2. Bar is articulate.
3. Bar likes to argue.
4. Bar is a lawyer.
5. All lawyers who are smart, articulate, and like to argue
will be successful lawyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------6. Bar will be a successful lawyer.
• This narrower generalization is more reasonable/likely.
• (PG) recommends true narrow over false wide.
1. Bar is smart.
2. Bar is articulate.
3. Bar likes to argue.
4. Bar is a lawyer.
5. Bar is a woman.
6. All lawyers who are women and are smart, articulate, and
like to argue will be successful lawyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------7. Bar will be a successful lawyer.
• (PG) favors true wide over true narrow, unless there is a specific
reason to think the author intended the narrower generalization.
Reconstructing Arguments 16
Reconstructing Arguments 17
Adding Implicit Generalizations (Example)
Adding Implicit Generalizations (Example #2)
• The principle of charity urges us to find the strongest argument in
• Two common mistakes here:
• (a) leaving out a requisite general premise
• (b) leaving the quantifier off a general premise
• Example:
• Michael must be tall. After all, he’s a professional
the vicinity. Consider the following non-deductive alternative:
1. Bar is smart.
2. Bar is articulate.
3. Bar likes to argue.
4. Bar is a lawyer.
5. Most lawyers who are smart, articulate, and like to
argue will be successful lawyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------6. Bar will be a successful lawyer.
• This may be a stronger argument than the deductive rendition.
This “most” generalization is more plausible, to be sure…
Reconstructing Arguments 18
Adding Implicit Generalizations (Example #2)
• Mistake (b) would lead to this incomplete reconstruction:
1. Michael is a professional basketball player.
2. Professional basketball players are tall.
-------------------------------------------------------3. Michael is tall.
• This is still incomplete, since (2) is missing a quantifier.
• Which quantifier should we add here?
• All? Most? or some other quantifier?
• Remember, we want the strongest, plausibly true claim…
basketball player.
• Mistake (a) would lead to this incomplete reconstruction:
1. Michael is a professional basketball player.
-------------------------------------------------------2. Michael is tall.