1. Arguments

2. Common Premise Indicators
About Arguments
Make a case for something
Offer premise
Claim as reason for conclusion
Common premise indicators
Tend to be phrased as conditional
Should, will, etc.
One or more premises, but only one main/final conclusion
Common Premise Indicators
Since
Seeing as
For
The reason that
Because
On account of the fact that

3. Common Conclusion / Inference Indicators
About Arguments
Arguments solicit a conclusion
Premise infers a conclusion
Inference = Something that suggests you should agree with the conclusion
Someone is/ something ought to be X due to premise(s) offered
Common indicators
Premise doesn’t prove anything
Attempts to persuade
Evaluate likelihood of outcome
Common Conclusion / Inference Indicators
Therefore
Hence
Consequently
We may conclude
Here are some reasons why
It follows that So
Thus

4. About Arguments Always consider other possible factors Persuasive?
Convincing?
Consider the accuracy / veracity of the premise
Because the GOP has more money, a Republican will win the next presidential election.
Consider likelihood of X being the case
Since you might get audited, you should accurately file your taxes.
Always consider other possible factors
Other reasons for outcome?
Diminish likelihood of premise as contributing factor? Strength of connection?

5. Mill’s Methods About MM John Stuart Mill
Developed systematic methods
Way to evaluate arguments
Way to conduct experiments- test probability
Determine strength of causality
Not absolute- tests likelihood of an outcome
Expose errors (fallacies) in argument, assumption
Canada maple leaves/ geese example
Identifies 4 methods

6. Method of Difference
Compares situations where the event occurs in one case, but not the other
S1: P, Q, R, S → Event
S2: P, Q, R → Event doesn’t occur

7. Method of Difference
Adam and Bill order Chinese food. They both have Kung Pao beef and Szechuan bean curd, but Bill doesn’t try the chicken lo mein. An hour later, Adam becomes violently ill, with vomiting and stomach cramps. These symptoms resemble those of food poisoning. What might have been the cause?

8. Method of Difference
Adam: beef, bean curd, chicken Event (food poisoning)
Bill: beef, bean curd  No Event (no food poisoning)
***Other reasons for outcome/no outcome?
***Diminish strength of connection?

9. Method of Difference
Mexico and Cuba were both colonized by Spain. Spain forced the Spanish language and Catholicism on both countries. Spain confronted an organized Aztec political system in Mexico, but only small tribes in Venezuela. Today Mexico is a democracy but Cuba is under an authoritarian regime. What might be the reason for this outcome?

10. Method of Difference
Mexico: Spanish church/ language, Aztecs Event (democracy)
Cuba: Spanish church/ language, tribes No Event (non-democratic)
***Other reasons for outcome/no outcome?
***Diminish strength of connection?

11. Method of Agreement
Compare factors of two cases where the same event occurs to see if there is one common factor between them
S1: P, Q, R, S→ Event
S2: T, U, V, S→ Event

12. Method of Agreement
Alex and Jenny go to a cookout. They both eat BBQ ribs. Jenny has a side of cole slaw. Alex has a side of potato salad and apple pie for dessert. Later, they both end up with severe headaches. What could have been the cause of these symptoms?

13. Method of Agreement Alex: ribs, potato salad, pie Event (headache)
Jenny: ribs, cole slaw  Event (headache)
***Other reasons for outcome/no outcome?
***Diminish strength of connection?

14. Method of Agreement
Weeble and Wobble are running for Congress. They both campaigned for legalization of Marijuana and gay rights, Only Weeble campaigns for tearing down the wall bordering Mexico, while Wobble focuses instead banning Internet pornography. Both candidates win seats. What could have been the cause?

15. Method of Agreement
Weeble: Marijuana, gay rights, border wall Event (elected)
Wobble: Marijuana, gay rights, pornography Event (elected)
***Other reasons for outcome/no outcome?
***Diminish strength of connection?

16. Joint Method of Agreement & Difference
-Used to compare cases where an event occurs in some cases, but not others
-Will always be 3 or more cases compared
S1: P, Q, S→ Event
S2: P, T, U→ Event
S3: R, V, S→ Event Doesn’t Occur

17. Joint Method of Agreement & Difference
Ben, Colleen, and Jeana all had headaches. Ben took acetaminophen with caffeinated coffee. Colleen took ibuprofen with caffeinated coffee. Jeana took aspirin with decaffeinated coffee. Ben and Colleen’s headaches went away, but Jeana’s did not. What could have resulted in Ben and Colleen’s headache relief?

18. Joint Method of Agreement & Difference
Ben: acetaminophen, caffeinated coffee  Event (relief)
Colleen: ibuprofen, caffeinated coffee Event (relief)
Jeana: aspirin, decaffeinated coffee  No Event (no relief)

19. Joint Method of Agreement & Difference
Covington, Newport, and Bellevue want to draw businesses. Covington instituted tax breaks and free electricity. Newport instituted tax breaks and free parking. Bellevue offers free Reds tickets and more streetlights. The number of businesses in Covington and Newport increased, but not in Bellevue. What could have been the connection?

20. Joint Method of Agreement & Difference
Covington: tax breaks, free electricity Event (more businesses)
Newport: tax breaks, free parking Event (more businesses)
Bellevue: free Reds tickets, more streetlights No Event (no increase in businesses)
***Other reasons for outcome/no outcome?
***Diminish strength of connection?

21. Method of Concomitant Variation
Varying a factor to see whether a change happens with that variation at the same time when a factor is altered
S1:  When X is increased, then Event occurrence rate increases
S2:  When X is decreased, then Event occurrence rate decreases

22. Method of Concomitant Variation
When I run regularly, my right knee hurts. When I don’t go running, my right knee doesn’t hurt.

23. Method of Concomitant Variation
S1:  When I run regularly, then Event (my knee hurting) occurrence rate increases
S2:  When I run less frequently, then Event (my knee hurting) occurrence rate decreases

24. Method of Concomitant Variation
If people don’t accept government healthcare, more people will need to get jobs. As more people accept government health care, fewer people need to work.

25. Method of Concomitant Variation
S1:  Not accepting government healthcare, then Event occurrence rate increases (more people work)
S2:  Accepting government healthcare, then Event occurrence rate decreases (fewer people work)

26. Recap Arguments Premise, inference, conclusion
Not proving; consider likelihood of outcome, persuasiveness of argument
Mill’s Methods
4 systematic tests
Strength of causality; likelihood
Not absolute- tests likelihood of an outcome
Avoid fallacies

27. How Persuasive are these Arguments?

28. The last person to see the victim alive must have been the murderer, and Wainsworth was the last person to see the victim alive. Thus, Wainsworth must have committed the murder.

29. Most people who read The New Republic are liberals
Most people who read The New Republic are liberals. Freedman reads The New Republic. Freedman is a liberal.

30. In the phone survey, 58% of the registered voters intending to vote in the election said thy planned to vote for Larson. Larson will receive more than 58% of the votes in the election.

31. We have probable cause to believe that Joe committed the crime
We have probable cause to believe that Joe committed the crime. His fingerprints were on the weapon, his DNA was found on the victim, and two independent witnesses testified that they saw him stab the victim.

32. 500 of the 2,000 Cactus County Public Library cardholders were randomly selected and asked whether they prefer fiction or nonfiction said they prefer fiction. Thus, you can be that most of Cactus County cardholders prefer fiction.

33. Since Sandy has a proven IQ of 153 and is an experienced test-taker, she will do very well on the law school admissions exams next week.