Standardizing Arguments Part I Dr. Jason Chang Critical Thinking and Writing

Standardizing Arguments What does standardizing involve? Mapping out an argument in premise-conclusion form (P1) (P2) (P3) Therefore, (C)

Standardizing Arguments “It is a mistake to think that medical problems can be treated solely by medication. First, medication does not address psychological and lifestyle issues. And second, medication often has side effects.” (P1) Medication does not address psychological and lifestyle issues. (P2) Medication often has side effects. Therefore, (C) Medical problems cannot be treated solely by medicine

Standardizing Arguments “It is vitally important that wildness areas be preserved. This is because wilderness provides essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural retreat from the stress of daily life.” (P1) Wilderness provides essential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species. (P2) Wildness is a natural retreat from the stresses of daily life. Therefore, (C) It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved.

Obstacles to Standardizing Arguments Claims not ordered Irrelevancies and redundancies Non-claims needing to be translated into claims Unstated premises and conclusions Subarguments

Not Ordered Example “If the practice of selling human organs is allowed to get a foothold, people in desperate financial straits will start selling their organs to pay their bills. So the selling of human organs should be outlawed. In addition, now that I think more about it, those with a criminal bent will take to killing healthy young people and selling their organs on the black market. Even more reason to think it should be outlawed! (P1) If the practice of selling human organs is allowed to get a foothold, people in desperate financial straits will start selling their organs to pay their bills (P2) Those with a criminal bent will take to killing healthy young people and selling their organs on the black market Therefore, (C) The selling of human organs should be outlawed.

Irrelevancies Sometimes a passage that contains an argument contains claims that are irrelevant to the argument Only include relevant claims in your standardization

Irrelevancies: An Example “I hate homework! Homework just stifles the thrill of learning in student’s mind. It instills an oppressive learn-or-else discipline. It squashes the desire for knowledge and the love of truth. For these reasons, homework should never be assigned. I’m sure many students would agree with me!” (P1) Homework instills an oppressive learn-or-else discipline. (P2) Homework stifles the thrill of learning in the student’s mind. Therefore, (C) Homework should never be assigned.

Non-Claims Needing Rewording Sometimes premises and conclusions appear in the form of a non-claim Translate relevant non-claims into claims in your standardization

Non-Claims Needing Rewording Example “If the global climate is getting warmer, then California should be under water by now. And is California really under water right now? How can anyone even think this? So, ultimately, what can we conclude from this?” (P1) If the global climate is getting warmer, then California should be under water right now. (P2) California is not under water right now. Therefore, (C) Global climate is not getting warmer.

Missing Premises An argument sometimes contains missing premises or conclusions Why missing premises need to be included Truth of missing premises is not obvious Keep the arguer honest (P1) (P2) (MP) Therefore, (C)

Missing Premises Example “The conditions under which many food animals are raised are unhealthy for humans. To keep these animals alive, large quantities of drugs – which linger in the animal’s body - must be administered.” (P1) Large quantities of drugs – which linger in the animal’s body – are administered to animals. (MP) These drugs are bad for human health. Therefore, (C) The conditions under which many food animals are raised are unhealthy for humans.

Subarguments A subargument is an argument within an argument Sometimes premises are controversial and in need of support. Subarguments provide the needed support. (P1) (P2) So, (P3) (P4) Therefore, (C)

Subarguments Example “A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating requires deliberatively breaking rules to win. A computer cannot deliberatively break rules because it has no freedom of action.” (P1) A computer has no freedom of action. So, (P2) A computer cannot deliberatively break rules. (P3) Cheating requires deliberatively breaking rules. Therefore, (C) A computer cannot cheat.

Subarguments Examples “The purpose of life in general is not something that can be known. That’s because every life has a different purpose, given to it by the person leading that life. Only the person leading a life can give it purpose.” (P1) Only the person leading a life can give it purpose. So, (P2) Every life has a different purpose, given to it by the person leading that life. Therefore, (C) The purpose of life in general is not something that can be known.

Subarguments Examples “Skating is a wonderful form of exercise. However, today’s rollerbladers are a growing menace. Rollerbladers are dangers to the public, as they breeze through red lights and skim down the wrong way on one way streets. ” (P1) Rollerbladers breeze through red lights and skim down the wrong way on one way streets. So, (P2) Rollerbladers are dangers to the public. Therefore, (C) Rollerbladers are a growing menace.

Diagramming Arguments Represents the argument in a diagram or picture Premises represented by encircled number Inferences represented by arrows Unlike standardizations, diagrams enable us to depict how premises support conclusion

Patterns of Support Three ways in which premises can support conclusion Linked support Convergent support Linear support

Linked Support Premises when taken together provide support for the conclusion All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. +

Convergent Support Premises converge on conclusion, where each provide independent support for the conclusion War leads to civilian deaths. War costs billions of dollars to execute. We should not go to war. War leads to future retaliation from our enemies.

Linear Support Premises make up a sequence of subarguments, each with only one premise. Jay should not order the cheesecake Jay is lactose intolerant. Jay should avoid dairy products.

References Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument, 7th edition, Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, (2010). Hurley, Patrick.. A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11th edition, Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, (2012).