Presentation on theme: "Our tasks this week: 1. Focus more on identifying issues. 2. Learning how to put arguments in standard form. 3. Understanding the different patterns in."— Presentation transcript:
Our tasks this week: 1. Focus more on identifying issues. 2. Learning how to put arguments in standard form. 3. Understanding the different patterns in argument form. 4. Dealing with implied premises and conclusions. 5.Thinking about visual arguments.
Identifying the Issue: Consider the Verdict 1.Evaluate juror #1’s claim 2.Evaluate juror #2’s claim 3.What is the key issue? 4.As a group, how would you vote: guilty or not guilty?
Standardizing an Argument (from supplementary material) Do you have an argument? Make sure that you indeed have an argument: is the speaker offering reasons intended to convince you of one or more claims made in the passage? Logical Flow: look at the logical flow of the passage and identify the conclusion. Identify Conclusion and Premises: decide which parts of the passage are stated as reasons intended to back up the conclusion and put these into the most natural logical order. Eliminate background information: background information, or material inserted just for added interest or for humor, (window dressing) is not part of the argument.
Editorial commentary should be distinguished from substantive remarks. You do not need to insert such expressions as “in my unprofessional opinion as a mother” and “I say to all professionals.” Abbreviate and Simplify: abbreviate and simplify the prose, putting it into clear complete statements that could be used as premises. Statements which are repeated should be entered only once in to the argument. Shorten, edit, and delete as necessary. Eliminate many of the elements of colloquial writing. Follow precisely Govier’s strategies (page 31).
7. This passage contains both an argument and a subargument. (1) The butler was passionately in love with the victim. Thus, (2) It was not the butler who committed the murder. (3) Either the butler committed the murder or the judge committed the murder. Therefore, (4)The judge committed the murder. The subargument goes from (1) to (2), and the main argument goes from (2) and (3) to (4). Note again: identifying the structure does not imply saying that this is a good argument.
11. There is an argument present. (1)Since the modern terrorist cannot be deterred…, civil society’s war on terror must at times resort to invasions of privacy and…’ (2)Invasions of privacy and uses of preemptive and excessive force cause intimidation and undermine trust. (3)Terrorism also causes intimidation and undermines trust. Therefore (4) Terrorism puts civil society in a difficult bind.
14. This passage contains an argument. (1) The individual who robs a bank gets a lot of money. (2) The individual who robs a bank benefits society by putting large amounts of cash back into circulation. (3) Bank robberies stimulate the economy. (4) Small businessmen prosper as a result of bank robberies. (5) People can read about bank robberies with great interest. (6) The police have a chance to exercise their skills when bank robberies are committed. So, (7) Bank robberies are good for all. Thus, (8) Of the varied forms of crime, bank robbery is the most satisfactory to both the individual and society.
My Valuable, Cheap College Degree 1.Is there an argument present? 2.Identify the issue: “Whether…” 3.State the conclusion. 4.Identify the core premises (the premises supporting the main argument) 5.Distinguish between premises and background material, window dressing, etc. 6.Eliminate repetition, colloquial writing, etc.
ISSUE: Whether 10K-B.A.s are worthless. Conclusion: 10K-B.A.s are not worthless. Standardized Argument: 1.I pursued and received a 10K-B.A. 2.I have had a successful career as a tenured professor and president of a research organization. THUS 3.My 10K-B.A. degree was not worthless. 4.Given the stagnant economy and falling social mobility, many people cannot afford to go to college. 5.The 10K-B.A. is an affordable alternative that makes it possible for many people to have an opportunity to go to college. THEREFORE 6.The 10K-B.A. is not worthless.
12.This passage contains an argument. (1)We are not under an obligation to give aid unless it is likely to be effective in reducing starvation or malnutrition. Therefore, (2)We are not under an obligation to give aid to countries that make no effort to reduce the rate of population growth that will lead to catastrophe.
16. This passage contains an argument. Standardization: (1) No one who uses a relatively unreliable procedure in order to decide whether to punish can know whether that other person deserves punishment. (2) No one who cannot know whether another person deserves punishment has a right to punish that person. Therefore, (3) No one who uses a relatively unreliable procedure in order to decide whether to punish another person has a right to punish that person.
Standardize the following argument: There are many reasons to doubt whether teachers should be subjected to tests of competence after they have been teaching for some years. After all, teachers were tested at colleges and universities before they became teachers. Furthermore, other professions are not tested in midstream. Some teachers have been given legal and moral guarantees of continued positions, and the tests jeopardize them. In addition, tests for teachers are unreliable. Another problem is that if teachers fail, poor salary conditions may mean that the new teachers hired to replace them are just as ill-qualified as the fired ones.
1. Teachers were tested at colleges and universities before they became teachers. 2. Other professions are not tested in midstream. 3. Some teachers have been given legal and moral guarantees of continued positions, and the tests jeopardize them. 4. Tests for teachers are unreliable. 5. If teachers fail, poor salary conditions may mean that the new teachers hired to replace them are just as ill-qualified as the fired ones. Therefore, 6. It is doubtful that teachers should be subjected to tests of competence after they have been teaching for some years.
Standardize the following argument: Look, we all know that everybody cheats in college. Nobody gets hurt as long as you don’t cheat on important classes in your major. Your GPA goes up, you get financial aid, you’re happy. Your family’s proud. The college gets tuition money. Your professors get big classes and keep their jobs. Cheating in college is a social benefit.
1.Your GPA goes up when you cheat. So 2. You get financial aid when you cheat. 3. You are happy. 4. Your family is proud. 5. The college gets tuition money. 6. Your professors get big classes and keep their jobs. Therefore, 7. Cheating in college is a social benefit.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.