In a study involving 42 countries it has been shown that married people are happier than those who remain single. The study also showed that it is not the living with someone in itself that makes the difference. Couples who had lived together without being married did not experience the same levels of happiness. The explanation probably lies in the lack of security that not being married represents. Insecurity is not good for people. We should therefore be pleased that, since marriage makes people happy, the UK has the fifth highest marriage rate in the world (unlike Ireland which has the lowest marriage rate in the world). Which of the flowing, if true, would most weaken the above argument? A) Most people who live together without being married end up getting married. B) The marriage rate in the UK has declined over the past 30 years. C) People who are married do not maintain high levels of happiness throughout their marriage. D) People who are happy are more likely to get and to stay married. E) Happiness increases or decreases as a result of a wide range of factors, such as income and religious belief.

Evaluating truth claims. “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”

Truth? A slippery concept, the underlying assumption is that one account of an event is either true or untrue, but cannot be both. Is this the case?

Truth? “I saw someone smash the window of the car, and then other man fiddled under the bonnet. Soon they got the car started and drove off at great speed”.

Truth? “I’d lost my car keys and my friend said that if I could just open the bonnet he could get the engine started. I hadn’t got any time to waste because I’d just heard that my little girl had been taken into hospital. I was so relieved when the car started and we just raced off as quickly as we could”.

Truth? Both descriptions are “true” in the sense that they describe an event, but significance differs. Thus we need to be able to evaluate truth claims in arguments, and to be able to say to what extent they support them.

Standards of truth. Criminal - “Beyond reasonable doubt”. Civil - “The balance of probability”.

Statistics “The survey showed that 55 percent of the population thought that the House of Lords had no useful function, therefore we should abolish it”. Is this evidence “true”? 4 Tests to apply -

Test of Good Faith To address the question we must first of all ask if the statement is being made in good faith - and generally this should be assumed. Some kinds of evidence might be rather slanted - the way that politicians tend to emphasise arguments that support their own point of view, and dismiss those of their opponents, but this does not mean that it is invalid - it might be fallacious, but only on the usual grounds.

Test of Reasonableness “Does the evidence look like the kind of evidence that we would find reasonable?” I.E. is this consistent with the kind of evidence that we would expect (I.e. not 98% or 4%!). Sometimes reasonableness is not obvious, because we do not know about the subject -

Test of Reasonableness “There are 7.5 million domestic cats in this country. Together they kill more than 200 Million birds and small animals, in addition to maiming a further 42 million. Therefore the wildlife in our gardens is at risk if the popularity of the cat continues to rise”.

Test of Reasonableness Most of us do not know whether or not these figures are reasonable. But - if we think of this as the average cat killing 32 victims each year (about 3 per month), this does start to seem quite reasonable. However, it is the way that the evidence is used which is important, which is covered by the next test -

Test of Selectiveness Where there is evidence that points in different directions, the arguer is likely to use only those bits of evidence that agree with them. If in the original argument the survey showed that 70% thought that there should be some sort of replacement for the HoL, then arguing for it’s abolition on 50% is overstated.

Test of Selectiveness Equally, with the cats argument, the author might be ignoring information that 220 million animals are killed on the road each year. Does this evidence affect the conclusion? Also what proportion of the bird and animal population are killed by cats - if it is small, then the conclusion may be questioned. We must ask if they have been selective, and if this distorts the truth?

Test of Significance Arguments often use evidence to mean one thing rather than another “Five million people in this country enjoy the various country sports, including hunting and shooting”.

What is the significance? Country sports are very popular. The figure of 5m is used to demonstrate the popularity - 5m sounds like a lot, and thus it could be used for the basis of an argument such as “Because 5m people enjoy these sports, parliament does not have the right to restrict them”.

What is the significance? Many people, about 90% do not enjoy country sports. Here the evidence is used to suggest that in fact they are unpopular. Thus this could be used to argue that, as so few people enjoy country sports, Parliament should abolish hunting. In both cases the same evidence is used.

What is the significance? We might return to the original argument & use the same evidence thus - “The survey showed that almost half the population did not think that the HOL had no useful function. Therefore it still has considerable public support”.

Facts & Judgements. Devon Malcolm is the fastest bowler in the England Cricket team. The Beatles were the best songwriters of the 1960s. The cat is the most popular pet in Britain. The Queen is the richest person in the country. Children’s standards of literacy are at their lowest level for ten years. Boxers of today are not as good the bare- knuckle fighters of the last century.