1. Deep Analysis: The Basics
Kareem Khalifa
Philosophy Department
Middlebury College

2. I. The Goal of Deep Analysis
To reconstruct a passage into a collection of sound, noncircular arguments presented in standard form.

3. Arguments in Standard Form
1st Premise
2nd Premise …
nth Premise
 n+1. Conclusion (from 1, 2, … n)
This is one of the clearest ways of presenting an argument’s structure.
In arguments that have three premises or fewer, I’ll allow you to drop this.

4. II. The Process of Deep Analysis
Step 1: Identify the Conclusion
Step 2: Omit Irrelevant Information
Step 3: Clarify crucial terms
Step 4: Dissect remaining propositions
Step 5: Fit the remaining information into common argument patterns

5. Example…
... We're also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad [the President of Iran) like the rogue and buffoon that he is. And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country. It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university. This is a person who denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening Mitt Romney, 2007 Republican Primary Debate

6. Step 1. Identify the Main Conclusion

7. Example
What’s the conclusion?
Two candidates…
... We're also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad [the President of Iran) like the rogue and buffoon that he is. And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country. It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university. This is a person who denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening Mitt Romney, 2007 Republican Primary Debate

8. How Charitable Interpretation Helps to Identify Conclusions…
When it’s unclear which proposition is the main conclusion, try treating one as the premise and the conclusion and then reversing their roles.
Usually, only one of these yields a plausible argument.

9. Example, continued WEIRD Two possible conclusions: The ‘Argument Test’
Ahmadinejad is a rogue and buffoon (i.e. bad)
The U.S. must prevent Ahmedinejad from having the capability to launch nuclear weapons.
The ‘Argument Test’
Because Ahmedinejad is bad, the U.S. must prevent him from having the capability to launch nuclear weapons.
Because the U.S. must prevent Ahmedinejad from having the capability to launch nuclear weapons, he is bad.
WEIRD

10. Step 2. Omit irrelevant information
Relevant = necessary for a sound, noncircular argument
Irrelevant = unnecessary for a sound, noncircular argument

11. How do we detect red herrings?
Identify the conclusion.
Examine each sentence, and determine if it contributes to a sound argument for the conclusion.
If so, use it in the standard form.
If not, omit it from the standard form.

12. Is ‘speaking about genocide’ relevant to 1 or 4?
Is there a sound argument with 4 as its conclusion and 2 or 3 as its premises?
Is ‘speaking about genocide’ relevant to 1 or 4?
... We're also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad [the President of Iran) like the rogue and buffoon that he is. [And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country.][ It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university.] This is a person who denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening Mitt Romney, 2007 Republican Primary Debate 1 2 3 4

13. Step 2
In normal passages, statements (or equivalent statements) are often stated repeatedly, either for emphasis or because it helps to guide the reader.
In standard form, a proposition needs to be stated only once.

14. Example What’s redundant here?
These are issues that should be left [to the states]. Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision--the Supreme Court at least has made a decision--that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it--you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed--but as I understand it, would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong--that power should not be taken away from the states .... John Edwards, Democratic Presidential Debate 2004

15. Step 2 Again: Drop guarding & assuring terms
If dropping these terms results in a sound, noncircular argument, then do so.
Otherwise, keep these terms.

16. What are guarding & assuring terms?
Assuring terms indicate that there are further reasons for a claim, though the author isn’t providing them right now.
Ex. “Experts agree…, ““Recent studies have shown…,” “I’m certain that…” “I can assure you that…”
Guarding terms make a claim more modest so that it’s less susceptible to criticism.
Ex. Using “most,” “a few,” “some,” instead of “all.”
Ex. Using “it is likely that p” or “it is possible that p” instead of “p”
Using “I have reason to believe that p” to “I believe that p” to “I suspect that p” instead of “p.”

17. Step 3. Clarify Crucial Terms
At this point in your analysis, you can put your argument in standard form.
The more precise a proposition, the more valid, noncircular inferences you can make with it.
Ex. “He is over there.” vs. “Khalifa is in Twilight 201.”
So clarify terms in the propositions so as to render your arguments sound and noncircular.

18. Step 4: Dissect the remaining propositions
Wherever you have a sentence with multiple clauses, break it apart.
Also a good writing tactic—several shorter sentences are easier to follow than one longer sentence.
This helps in criticizing the argument. You can identify distinct ways in which the argument can fail.

19. The Socialism Example
Socialism is doomed to failure because it does not provide the incentives that are needed for a prosperous economy.
I don’t share Fogelin & Sinnott-Armstrong’s thoughts on this. Here’s how I’d paraphrase it:
If socialism is successful, then it results in a prosperous economy.
If socialism results in a prosperous economy, then it provides adequate incentives.
 If socialism is successful, then it provides adequate incentives.
Socialism does not provide adequate incentives.
 Socialism is not successful.

20. Exercise I.1
Philadelphia is rich in history, but it is not now the capital of the United States, so the United States Congress must meet somewhere else.
If the Congress meets, then it meets at the current capital of the USA.
Philadelphia is not the current capital of the USA.
 The Congress does not meet at Philadelphia.

21. I.3
I know that my wife is at home, since I just called her there and spoke to her. We talked about our dinner plans.
If I just called my wife at home and spoke with her, then I know that she is at home.
I just called my wife at home and spoke with her.
 I know that my wife is at home.

22. I.4
I'm not sure, but Joseph is probably Jewish. Hence, he is a rabbi if he is a member of the clergy.
Joseph is probably Jewish.
If someone is probably Jewish and a member of the clergy, then he is a rabbi.
 If Joseph is a member of the clergy, then he is a rabbi.

23. I.5
Some students could not concentrate on the lecture, because they did not eat lunch before class, although I did.
Some students did not eat lunch before class.
If one does not eat lunch before class, then one cannot concentrate on the lecture.
 Some students could not concentrate on the lecture.

24. I.7
The Democrat is likely to win, since experts agree that more women support him.
More women support the Democrat.
If more women support the Democrat, then he is likely to win.
 The Democrat is likely to win.

25. III
If Conoco’s leases convey a valid right to drill, then the BLM performed a full environmental analysis and solicited sufficient public input before issuing leases to Conoco that give it a right to drill.
The BLM did not perform a full environmental analysis before issuing leases to Conoco that give it a right to drill.
The BLM did not solicit sufficient public input before issuing leases to Conoco that give it a right to drill.
 Conoco leases do not convey a valid right to drill.
Argument for Premise 2
If the BLM did an abbreviated review and did not look at drilling on the other federal leases, then it did not perform a full environmental analysis.
The BLM did an abbreviated review and did not look at drilling on the other federal leases.
2. The BLM did not perform a full environmental analysis before issuing Conoco leases that give it a right to drill.

26. Diagram for III 5 6 1 2 3 4