Defending the premises The key to a successful argument

Writing a good argumentative essay To present a series of valid deductive arguments to offer evidence that the premises of your argument are true to defend your argument from cogent objections to put this all into readable prose

Reason and Evidence I.Reason Proper Argument Form E.g. modus ponens IF A then B A Therefore, B II. Evidence Proof that the premises of your argument are true or that it is reasonable to accept them Requires research and creative thinking II is a lot more work than I

Trivial vs Substantial P1:All men are mortal P2: Socrates is a man C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal Trivial premises No need to offer evidence because there is no dispute P1: Abortion is murder P2: Murder is wrong C: Abortion is wrong Non-trivial (substantial) premises Evidence required because premise are in dispute

How to defend a premise, part 1 If A then B implies All A are B “If he broke the law, then he should be punished” implies “All those who break the law should be punished” Evidence: A society requires the enforcement of laws if it is to exist in an orderly fashion. Obviously, if lawbreakers were not punished, society would soon descend into chaos The moral of the story: A good way to defend a hypothetical premise (IF A THEN B) is to convert it into a corresponding categorical statement (ALL A are B)

An example: Standard anti-abortion argument P1: If something is human, then it is wrong to kill it P2: The fetus is a human life C: It is wrong to kill a fetus If A then B A Therefore, B MODUS PONENS

Defense of Premise 1 PREMISE 1: “If something is human it is wrong to kill it” IMPLIES All humans are wrong to kill OR, MORE COLLOQUIALLY It is wrong to kill humans DEFENSE OF P1: :The prohibition against killing is perhaps the oldest moral code in existence, adopted by ever civilized nation and respected and honored in all places. Imagine a land that did not consider murder wrong. How long could such a nation or people last? [Note: If you are thinking sharply, you will realize that there are exceptions to this statement, for example, in cases of self defense it is not obviously wrong to kill. We will deal with complications later]

Defense of Premise 2 Premise 2: The fetus is a human. Defense/Evidence: This is a much more difficult premise to defend, and I will only sketch the outlines of such a defense here. One must first come up with a definition of what constitutes something’s being human and then declare that the fetus has that characteristic. But what is this characteristic that makes us human? Consciousness. Obviously the newly formed fetus does not possess this. Potential for consciousness. Well, that at some point can be said of the sperm along—if it joins the egg and matures it will be conscious. But this would make birth control the equivalent of abortion The point is, a lot of work would have to into defending this premise, involving research into various characteristics that have been proposed for what makes something human as well as an understanding of the development of the fetus. The bottom line is that defending premises winds up being a lot of work

My argument Premise 1: If the Peace Corps China (PCC) mission accomplishes the original goal of the Peace Corps, then we should not eliminate the Peace Corps China mission Premise 2: The Peace Corps China mission accomplishes the original goal of the Peace Corps Conclusion: Therefore, we should not eliminate the Peace Corps China mission

Defense of my P1 P1: If the Peace Corps China (PCC) mission accomplishes the original goal of the Peace Corps, then we should not eliminate the Peace Corps China mission (IF A THEN B) IMPLIES--) “ALL A ARE B”: All government programs that accomplish their missions should not be eliminated. Defense: In these difficult economic times, we obviously must cut expenditures from the federal budget. But in the search for what to cut, we should first focus on wasteful programs that are not achieving their promised goals. Clearly, such programs should be cut before useful programs that are achieving their goals.

Defense of my P2 Premise 2: The Peace Corps China mission accomplishes the original goal of the Peace Corps Defense/Evidence: The first of the three Peace Corps goals as established fifty years ago by President Kennedy is “to help people of other countries meet their needs for trained manpower.” In the case of China, there is a country-wide shortage of 500,000 English teachers—primarily in poor, rural areas. The Peace Corps China Volunteers located in western China teach English language and communication skills to Chinese university students who are training to become middle school English teachers in these rural areas. By helping to train the teachers, the program leverages its resources to reach as many children as possible

Defense of my P2 (cont) A second Peace Corps goal is to promote a better understanding of America abroad. As with all Peace Corps programs, volunteers introduce American culture, history, and literature to the communities in which they serve; for many Chinese, this may be their first – and only – direct, unfiltered interaction with Americans. In addition, while education is the sole official program, volunteers in China have side projects where they build relationships with the local community

The Two parts of your argument THEORETICAL “It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being” Defense requires that you must offer a theory of what makes something right and wrong FACTUAL “The fetus is an innocent human being” Defense requires you specify the factual/scientific criteria for what makes something human