Zaid Ali Alsagoff [email_address] Module 3: Arguments Part 2
Do You Agree with Him? Why? Source: http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg
An Inconvenient Truth Must See: An Inconvenient Truth (Video). URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=%22Inconvenient+truth%22&hl=en Futurama explains Global Warming - as used in An Inconvenient Truth - Google Video. URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826207674342179094&q=%22global+warming%22&hl=en Climate Crises (site): http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Global Warming Projections Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Global Warming Predictions Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Risks and Impacts of Global Warming Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Therefore, Yasmin Ahmad‘ s next movie will probably be good .
Arguments below deductive or inductive? Types of Arguments: Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.
The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows from the premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is deductive .
In this example, the conclusion does follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. Although the premises are both false, the conclusion does follow logically from the premises, because if the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true as well.
Texans are architects. No architects are Democrats. So, no Texans are Democrats.
In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Zaid's argument should be regarded as deductive or inductive. For arguments like these, we fall back on the principle of charity test .
According to the principle of charity test , we should always interpret an unclear argument or passage as generously as possible.
We could interpret Zaid's argument as deductive. But this would be uncharitable, since the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. (It is logically possible--although highly unlikely--that a 90-year-old woman who walks with a cane could climb Gunung Kinabalu.) Thus, the principle of charity test tells us to treat the argument as deductive.
Ramlan : Karen told me her grandmother recently climbed Gunung Kinabalu. Zaid : Well, Karen must be pulling your leg. Karen's grandmother is over 90 years old and walks with a cane.
3.5 Exercise 1 Tony : Are there any good Italian restaurants in town? Nasir : Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan rigatoni, their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't think you can go wrong with any of their pasta dishes. Is Nasir’s argument deductive or inductive? Why?
3.5 Exercise 2 I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology textbook as well as my biology and history textbooks. Let's see, I have $200. My biology textbook costs $65 and my history textbook costs $52. My psychology textbook costs $60. With taxes, that should come to about $190. Yep, I have enough. Is this argument deductive or inductive? Why?
3.5 Exercise 3 Mother : Don't give Shahariza that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I think She is allergic to walnuts. Last week she ate some oatmeal cookies with walnuts, and she broke out in a severe rash. Father : Shahariza isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember she ate some walnut fudge ice cream at Fuadah's birthday party last spring? She didn't have any allergic reaction then. Is the Father’s argument deductive or inductive? Why?
Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).
Six (6) basic steps:
Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and conclusion indicators you see.
Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument (Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.)
Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support.
Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of flowchart that shows which premises are intended to support which conclusions.
Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support. Indicate linked premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked premises, underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support
Put the argument’s main conclusion at the bottom of the diagram.
A paraphrase is a detailed restatement of a passage using different words and phrases. A good paraphrase is:
It is often possible to interpret a passage in more than one way. In such cases, the principle of charity requires that we interpret the passage as charitable as the evidence reasonably permits (e.g. clarifying the arguer’s intent in ways that make the arguments stronger and less easy to attack). Charitable It captures the essence of an argument, and strips away all the irrelevant or unimportant details and puts the key points of the argument in a nutshell. Concise Clarifies what an argument is saying. It often translates complex and confusing language into language that’s easier to understand. Clear It reproduces the author’s meaning fairly and without bias and distortion. Accurate
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. (George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796)
Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For this reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts for reasons that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial ties that would get us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of European politics.
Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.
Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.
3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions
“ The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King (BK).”
(Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK)
In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated for different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing something, etc).
3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions
An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an Enthymeme .
Two (2) basic rules :
Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions . Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say – to reach his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument must be consistent with everything the arguer says.
Be charitable. Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a plausible way of interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2) makes the argument as good an argument as it can be.
Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called Standardizing.
Standardizing consists of restating an argument in standard logical form when each step in the argument is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above the conclusions they are claimed to support, and justifications are provided for each conclusion in the argument.
Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main conclusion (it may be only implied) and any major premises and sub-conclusions . Paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning
Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.
Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct logical order (i.e., with the premises placed above the conclusions they are intended to support).
Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).
Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In other words, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate in parentheses from which previous lines in the argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed to directly follow.
We can see something only after it has happened. Future events, however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically impossible.
We can see something only after it has happened.
Future events have not yet happened.
So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not happened (from 1-2)
It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to have happened.
[Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]
Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 188-189.
(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2 nd Edition)
Global Warming: Most scientists now argue that atmospheric pollution is making the world’s climate warmer.
Break into groups of 4 - 6, read the articles on Global Warming provided by the lecturer, and then reflect, discuss and answer the following questions:
Standardize (summarize the arguments) the “Global warming” article (150 words or less).
Is Global Warming relevant to us ? Why?
What strategies can Malaysia use to reduce pollution?
What can You do to reduce pollution?
Group presentation & discussion 15 min The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the lecturer before or during the next class. Summarize discussion findings 5 min Group discussion 20 min
Summary To analyze an argument means to break it up into various parts to see clearly what conclusion is being defended and on what grounds. Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter). Standardizing is a method used to analyze longer arguments, which involves paraphrasing and finding missing premises and conclusions. 2. Analyzing Arguments Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises. 5. Deduction and Induction