1. Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 3 Analyzing Arguments

2. What is an argument? An argument is a set of claims; one of which is supported by the others.  The conclusion is the claim that the arguer is trying to prove.  The premise is a claim providing support for a conclusion.

3. Inference Indicators Conclusion Indicators therefore… thus… consequently… so... hence… accordingly… Premise Indicators because… since… for… given... as… follows from…

4. What is the Issue?  An issue is any matter of controversy or uncertainty.  The issue is whether the conclusion is true.  Different from a topic of conversation:  Topic: Abortion  Issue: Whether abortion should remain legal  Issue: Whether having an abortion is ethical

5. Formal Analysis Step 1: Place the conclusion at the bottom, and label with  Step 2: List each premise as P1, P2, etc. above the conclusion. Step 3: Draw a line under the last premise. Step 4: Make sure each claim is written as a complete sentence that can stand alone, replacing any pronouns with their referents. Step 5: State the issue positively underneath the conclusion.

6. Grace is armed, so she’s dangerous. _______ so __________ premise conclusion P:  Issue:

7. Grace is not dangerous because she’s unarmed. _______ because _______ conclusionpremise P:  Issue:

8. Your Turn! How does identifying the conclusion help you identify the issue?

9. Arguments without Indicators  Ask yourself, What is the main point of the argument?  Try inserting inference indicators to identify the conclusion and premise.  claim 1 because claim 2.  claim 1 therefore claim 2.

10. You should buy Suave. It costs less than similar products from a salon.  You should buy Suave because it costs less than similar products from a salon.  You should buy Suave therefore, it costs less than similar products from a salon.

11. You should buy Suave. It costs less than similar products from a salon. P:  Issue:

12. Extra Claims Extra claims are claims that are included with arguments, but are neither premises nor conclusions.  Provide rhetorical flourish  Provide background information about the topic  Motivate the argument by presenting an opponent’s view

13. Felipe ought to try out for wrestling, since he is both strong and quick. That’s what I would do if I were him. P:  Issue:

14. My boss thinks I should be content with my current salary, but I heartily disagree. Overtime and weekend work need to be compensated, and I put in plenty of both. P1: P2:  Issue:

15. Your turn! How do you decide whether to include a claim in your Formal Analysis?

16. Unstated Conclusions  Arguer thinks that the conclusion is so obvious that the reader will understand it without it being stated explicitly.  Must be identified in your analysis.

17. Anyone guilty of leaking classified government documents is guilty of treason, and that is just what Julian Assange has done. P1: P2:  Issue:

18. Implied Claims  Arguers sometimes use a non-claim rhetorically to imply a claim.  Can be a premise or conclusion  Must be identified in your analysis

19. You should be a philosophy major. Aren’t they smarter than everyone else? P:  Issue:

20. Your turn! How is it possible that a sentence that is not a claim can play a role in an argument?

22. Tan…don’t burn use Coppertone. Don’t be a paleface. P1: P2:  Issue:

24. Police Warning: Car Crime! While you’re walking, will the contents of your car do the same? Remove it or lose it. Seen something suspicious? Ring police emergency 999 or Crimestoppers 0800 555111. P1: P2:  Issue:

25. Multiple Arguments  Arguments with multiple conclusions are two or more arguments sharing the same premise(s).  Chain arguments are two or more arguments constituting a chain of reasoning.  A subargument provides evidence for a premise of the main argument.  The intermediate conclusion is the claim that is both a conclusion of a subargument and a premise of the main argument.

26. The Saints are likely to retain all of their best starters from last year’s championship team. Thus, Reggie Bush will be their premier running back, and Drew Brees will be their quarterback this year. _____. Thus, _____, and ______. premiseconclusionconclusion

27. The Saints are likely to retain all of their best starters from last year’s championship team. Thus, Reggie Bush will be their premier running back, and Drew Brees will be their starting quarterback this year. P  P 

28. The Saints are likely to retain all of their best starters from last year’s championship team. Thus, Reggie Bush will be their premier running back, and Drew Brees will be their quarterback this year. Issue:

29. Either the New Orleans Saints or the Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl. The Colts obviously will not win the game, since their coverage is soft and their defense is undersized. So, the Saints will win the Super Bowl. _____. _____, since _____ and _____. So _____. ? conclusion premise premise conclusion

30. Either the New Orleans Saints or the Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl. The Colts obviously will not win the game, since their coverage is soft and their defense is undersized. So, the Saints will win the Super Bowl. P1 P2  P1 P2 

31. Either the New Orleans Saints or the Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl. The Colts obviously will not win the game, since their coverage is soft and their defense is undersized. So, the Saints will win the Super Bowl. Issue:

32. Your Turn! How can you determine when a multiple argument has multiple issues?

33. Writing a Basic Analysis Step 1: Identify the passage.  Identify the source if given.  Identify the passage as an argument, explanation, or neither an argument nor an explanation.

34. Writing a Basic Analysis Step 2: Analyze the passage.  If the passage is neither an argument nor an explanation, state why.  If the passage is an explanation, identify the explanandum and explanans.  If the passage is an argument, identify the issue, conclusion, and premises.  If the passage is a multiple argument, analyze each argument in a separate paragraph.

35. Police are looking for a suspect who robbed a local gas station two weeks ago. Video from the station’s security camera shows a man walking into the store with a gun, pointing it at the cashier, and exiting the store with cash from the register. No injuries have been reported. This passage contains neither an argument nor an explanation. It contains at least two claims, but none of the claims offers reasons for any of the others as is required in arguments and explanations.

36. I was terrified because all I saw was this gun, and I really thought that he was going to shoot me. This passage contains an explanation. The explanandum is that I was terrified. The explanans is that I saw a gun, and I thought that the gunman was going to shoot me.

37. We believe that the suspect in this case is the same one responsible for two other gas station robberies that occurred earlier this month. The physical descriptions are very similar, and the same kind of weapon was used in all three incidents. P1: P2:  Issue:

38. This passage contains an argument. The issue is whether the suspect in this robbery is the same one responsible for two other gas station robberies that occurred earlier this month. The conclusion is that the suspect in this robbery is the same one responsible for two other gas station robberies that occurred earlier this month. The first premise is that the physical descriptions of the suspects in all three gas station robberies this month are very similar. The second premise is that the same kind of weapon was used in all three gas station robberies this month.