chapter 5 – arguments with missing conclusions … · critical thinking, chapter 5 – arguments...

Critical Thinking, Chapter 5 – Arguments with Missing Conclusions Dona Warren

1

CHAPTER 5 – ARGUMENTS WITH MISSING CONCLUSIONS

What You’ll Learn in this Chapter Welcome to Chapter 5! This is it! By the time we finish this chapter, we’ll have a complete set of reasoning tools, one that will enable us to analyze, evaluate, and construct any argument, however complex! In fact, now that we’ve studied arguments with subconclusions, dependent reasons and independent reasons, we’re already able to handle virtually any argument. In approaching some pieces of reasoning, however, we might be faced with an unexpected difficulty: in real-life, authors might not explicitly state one or more of their subconclusions and sometimes they might not explicitly state their ultimate conclusions either. Thus, in this chapter: You’ll learn more about analyzing arguments. In particular, you’ll learn how to find missing ultimate conclusions and how to find missing subconclusions.

You’ll learn more about evaluating arguments. In particular, you’ll learn how to evaluate inferences by supplying missing subconclusions.

You’ll learn about constructing arguments. In particular, you’ll learn how to leave some conclusions unstated in arguments of your own

Example 1

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Let’s start by considering the following passage.

“Emotions undoubtedly have a sensory component, and it’s sometimes wondered whether emotions can be identified with the purely physical feelings that accompany them. Is anxiety, for instance, nothing more than that jittery sensation in the stomach?”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? I don’t think that this passage is trying to convince us of anything, so I wouldn’t say that it conveys an argument. Nor do I think that this passage is trying to explain why something is the case, so I wouldn’t say that it contains an explanation of why. This passage contains neither an argument nor an explanation of why.


2

Summary This passage contains neither an argument nor an explanation of why. It simply talks about the nature of emotion.

“Emotions undoubtedly have a sensory component, and it’s sometimes wondered whether emotions can be identified with the purely physical feelings that accompany them. Is anxiety, for instance, nothing more than that jittery sensation in the stomach?”

Example 2 Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s another passage.

“Many people think that emotion interferes with reason. There are probably a number of reasons for this opinion. First, emotions tend to be associated with the body whereas reason is associated with the mind. Second, emotions have, historically, been linked with ‘irrational’ women, who are defined in opposition to ‘rational’ men.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? I think that this passage is either trying to convince us of something, making it an argument, or trying to account for something, making it an explanation. But which of these things is trying to do? Well, if this passage contains an argument, of what is it trying to convince us? Is it trying to convince us that emotion interferes with reason? I don’t think so. I don’t think that this passage is trying to convince us that reason is undermined by emotion. Is the passage trying to convince us only of the fact that that many people think that emotion interferes with reason? No. When I read the passage again, it doesn’t seem to be trying to convince me of this, either. In short, this passage is attempting to account for the opinion that emotions interfere with reason without trying to convince us that emotions do, in fact, have this effect. This makes it an explanation of why, not an argument. Summary This passage contains an explanation of why. It’s explaining why people think that emotions interfere with reason.


3

“Many people think that emotions interfere with reason. There are probably a number of reasons for this opinion. First, emotions tend to be associated with the body whereas reason is associated with the mind. Second, emotions have, historically, been linked with ‘irrational’ women, who are defined in opposition to ‘rational’ men.”

Example 3

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument What about this passage?

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? It seems to me that this passage contains an argument, even though there isn’t an inference indicator expression to be found. Finally, we have an argument to diagram! Step 2 - Analyzing the Argument Stop and Think What is the ultimate conclusion of this argument? What other ideas in the passage are important? How many lines of reasoning are there? The ultimate conclusion is “George should be president of the club,” and because the other sentences look important as well, we get the following list of ideas.

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” U 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president.

Now, how many lines of reasoning does this argument have? Well, if there are three lines of reasoning then ideas 2, 3, and 4 will each have their own arrow to 1; they’ll all be independent reasons. But I don’t think they are all independent reasons.


4

Idea 4 alone isn’t enough to give us 1. Someone who believes that we need a

rational club president but doesn’t believe that George is emotional or that emotional people are irrational wouldn’t be inclined to believe that George shouldn’t be president of the club. Similarly, 3 alone isn’t enough to give us 1. Someone who believes that emotional people are irrational but doesn’t believe that that George is emotional or that we need a rational club president wouldn’t be inclined to believe that George shouldn’t be president of the club.

Finally, 2 alone isn’t enough to give us 1. Someone who believes that George is emotional but doesn’t believe that emotional people are irrational or that we need a rational club president wouldn’t be inclined to believe that George shouldn’t be president of the club. We’ve seen that there can’t be three lines of reasoning. Could there be two?

Well, if there are two lines of reasoning, we have three possibilities. First, ideas 2 and 3 could comprise one line of reasoning while 4 comprises the other. Second, ideas 3 and 4 could comprise one line of reasoning while idea 2 comprises the other. Third, ideas 2 and 4 could comprise one line of reasoning while idea 3 comprises the other. In short, one of these ideas must be able to support the ultimate conclusion on its own. But can any of these ideas support 1 by itself? No, we’ve already seen that none of these ideas can support 1 by itself when we examined the possibility that each idea comprised its own line of reasoning. There must, then, be only one line of reasoning in this argument. Somehow, ideas 2, 3 and 4 must work together to support 1.

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” U 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president.

Now we just need to figure out how ideas 2, 3 and 4 work together.

2, 3, 4

1


5

Stop and Think How do 2, 3 and 4 work together to support 1? Are they all premises, or is one of them a subconclusion? Let’s approach this question by seeing if any of these ideas is a subconclusion.

If idea 2 is a subconclusion then it must follow from 3 alone, from 4 alone, or from 3 and 4 together. If idea 2 followed from 3 alone, we would read up that arrow as “George is emotional because emotional people are irrational,” but that sounds strange. If idea 2 followed from 4 alone, we would read up that arrow as “George is emotional because we need a rational club president.” That sounds strange, too. If idea 2 followed from 3 and 4 together, we’d read up that arrow as “George is emotional because emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” That is isn’t good either, so idea 2 can’t be the subconclusion.

If idea 3 is a subconclusion then it must follow from 2 alone, from or 4 alone, or

from 2 and 4 together. If idea 3 followed from 2 alone, we would read up that arrow as “Emotional people are irrational because George is emotional.” Not good. If idea 3 followed from 4 alone, we would read up that arrow as “Emotional people are irrational because we need a rational club president.” Not good either. If idea 3 followed from 2 and 4 together, we’d get, “Emotional people are irrational because George is emotional and because we need a rational club president. That sounds wrong, too, so idea 3 isn’t our subconclusion.

Finally, if idea 4 is a subconclusion then it must follow from 2 alone, from 3 alone,

or from 2 and 3 together. If idea 4 followed from 2 alone, we would read up that arrow as “We need a rational club president because George is emotional.” That sounds wrong. If idea 4 followed from 3 alone, we’d get “We need a rational club president because emotional people are irrational.” That doesn’t sound too bad, but it isn’t as good as it might initially seem. Wouldn’t “We need an unemotional club president,” be the natural conclusion from “Emotional people are irrational?” If idea 4 followed from 2 and 3 together, we’d have “We need a rational club president because George is emotional and emotional people are irrational.” That sounds garbled to me, so idea 4 isn’t a subconclusion either. Because none of these ideas are subconclusions, they must all be premises. And because we have only one line reasoning, the argument must be diagrammed like this:

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” U 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. P 2. George is emotional. P 3. Emotional people are irrational. P 4. We need a rational club president.


6

2 + 3 + 4 A 1

It might be sort of strange to see three ideas added together like this. But think about it this way: What if someone believed 2 and 3 but not 4? Would that person be inclined to conclude that George shouldn’t be president? No, because that person wouldn’t see the need for a rational club president.

What if someone believed 2 and 4 but not 3? Would that person be inclined to conclude that George shouldn’t be president? No, because that person might not see any conflict between being emotional and being rational?

Finally, what if someone believed 3 and 4 but not 2? This person wouldn’t be inclined to conclude that George shouldn’t be president either, because that person wouldn’t think that George is emotional. In short, in order to conclude 1, you need to believe 2, 3 and 4 at the same time. They are all dependent reasons in support of 1. Step 3- Evaluating the Argument Evaluating Inferences: Adding Missing Subconclusions We’ve diagrammed this argument as follows:

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. 2 + 3 + 4 A 1

Now we can evaluate it, but assessing the inference could pose a problem because it requires us to determine how likely someone is to believe idea 1 on the basis of believing ideas 2, 3, and 4. And this determination might be difficult for us to make because, with a couple of notable exceptions that we’ll see shortly, people tend to put ideas together two, not three, at a time.


7

To appreciate the binary nature of our thought, take a moment to add the following numbers: 7 + 6 + 3 + 4 + 2 = ? What answer did you get? Hopefully you got 22. Now how did you get 22? Here’s what I’ll be you didn’t do: I’ll bet you didn’t just add those five numbers all at once. I’ll bet you added the numbers two at a time, and what two numbers you added together first might have depended upon what two numbers you think “go together” well. I, for example, like to try to add together numbers that give me 10, so I added the 7 and the 3 first.

Then I added together the 6 and the 4. And finally I add the 20 and the 2. Just like it’s natural for us to add numbers two at a time, no matter how many numbers we have, it’s natural for us to combine ideas two at a time, no matter how many dependent reasons we have. First we ask, “Which two of these ideas ‘snap together’

7 + 6 + 3 + 4 + 2 10

7 + 6 + 3 + 4 + 2 10 10 20

7 + 6 + 3 + 4 + 2 10 10 20 22


8

nicely?” Then we ask, “What subconclusion follows (or what subconclusion does the author wish us to draw) from these two ideas when we snap them together?” This will give us the missing subconclusion that we can add to our list of ideas and to our diagram, allowing this missing subconclusion to play the same role that its two “parent” ideas jointly played before. This process will give us two smaller, inferences to evaluate in place of the one bigger inference. Don’t worry. This all sounds much more complicated than it actually is. Let’s see how it works in the argument at hand.


Stop and Think Look at ideas 2, 3 and 4. Which two of these ideas “snap together” nicely? Looking at our list of ideas, my focus is drawn to ideas 2 and 3. They share “emotion” as a common concept, and so could link up there. Let’s think about ideas 2 and 3 together.

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. (2 + 3) + 4 A 1

Stop and Think What subconclusion follows from ideas 2 and 3? If I say “George is emotional” (idea 2) and “emotional people are irrational,” (idea 3) what could you conclude?


9

If someone believed that George is emotional and that emotional people are irrational, that person would be led to conclude that George is irrational, the idea composed of the “left-over” notions from 2 and 3. Since this is a missing subconclusion in the argument, we’ll add it to our list of ideas, designating it with a lowercase letter instead of a number, in order to distinguish it from ideas that the author explicitly stated. And because this subconclusion follows from ideas 2 and 3, we’ll draw an arrow to it from ideas 2 and 3. It all looks like this:

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. a. George is irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. 2 + 3 A1 a + 4 A2 1

By the way, it doesn’t matter where in the list of ideas we put a missing conclusion. I’ll usually put it immediately after the ideas from which it follows, but you can put it at the end of the list, if you prefer. And notice how the missing subconclusion serves the role in the argument previously served by the ideas from which it comes. Because ideas 2 and 3 worked with 4 to prove 1, ‘a’ works with premise 4 to prove 1. Before we move on to evaluate this argument, let’s reconsider our original diagram. “It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.”

1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. 2 + 3 + 4 A 1


10

We supplied a missing subconclusion in this argument by putting ideas 2 and 3 together. Ideas 2 and 3 do, in fact, “snap together” nicely, but is this the only way we could have supplied a missing subconclusion to this argument? No, because there’s another pair of ideas which snap together well. Stop and Think Look at ideas 2, 3 and 4. What other pair of these ideas “snap together” well? What missing subconclusion follows from these ideas? We could combine ideas 3 and 4 instead of combining ideas 2 and 3.

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. 2 + (3 + 4) A 1

Someone who believed that emotional people are irrational (idea 3) and believed that we need a rational club president (idea 4), would conclude that we need an unemotional club president. Once again, we can see this by joining 3 and 4 together like pieces in a puzzle. Their common notion is rationality, so the conclusion that follows from them must include left-over notions of emotional people and club presidents, specifically “We need an unemotional club president.” Since this idea is a missing subconclusion in the argument, following from ideas 3 and 4, we’ll add to our list of ideas like so:

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. a. We need an unemotional club president.

3 + 4 A1

2 + a A2

1


11

Again, because the missing subconclusion serves the role in the argument previously served by the ideas from which it came, and because ideas 3 and 4 worked with idea 2 to prove 1, ‘a’ works with premise 2 to prove 1. We’ve seen that there are two ways to supply a missing subconclusion in this argument.


We have this way:


And we have this way:

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. a. We need an unemotional club president.


12

3 + 4

A1 2 + a A2

1 Adding Subconclusions as we Analyze From a purely logical point of view doesn’t matter which subconclusion we choose for our diagram. Either one will make the argument easier evaluate than it would have been otherwise, because instead of evaluating one inference that requires us to hold three ideas in our heads at once, adding either missing subconclusion provides us with two smaller “bite-sized” inferences. Essentially, adding missing subconclusions allows us to “decompose” inference A into two more manageable inferences: inference A1 and inference A2. There is, however, a “best practice” that governs which missing subconclusion is better from a procedural point of view. Because in real life, we add missing subconclusions as we read – as a kind of “active reading” strategy - it’s best to add missing subconclusions as soon as we can, completely by-passing the diagram that requires us to add together more than two ideas at a time. In other words, it’s generally a good idea to add missing subconclusions as we analyze an argument, instead of waiting until we’re ready to evaluate the reasoning. To see how this works, let’s go through this argument again. The first thing we notice is that “George shouldn’t be president of the club” is the ultimate conclusion. I’ll note that by putting a “1” in the text.

“It’s clear that 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.”

The next thing we see is that “George is emotional” and “emotional people are irrational” are both important ideas – claims that are doing some real work in the argument. To indicate this, I’ll number them both in the text.

“It’s clear that 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional; 3. emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.”

Now here’s something useful to know: two important ideas in argument must be related in one of the following three ways: First, one of the ideas might be a reason to believe the other. In this case, 2 might be a reason to believe 3 or 3 might be a reason to believe 2, like this:


13

2 3 3 2 Second, they might be added together as dependent reasons that support a third idea, like this: 2 + 3 ? Third, they might work independently, either because each of them acts on its own to support a common third idea, or because each of them works on its own to support distinct conclusions, like this: 2 3 ?

or like this: 2 3 ? ? Knowing that ideas 2 and 3 in our argument are both important, we should stop right away and ask ourselves how they are related to each other.

“It’s clear that 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional; 3. emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.”

It doesn’t look like 2 is a reason to believe 3 or 3 is a reason to believe 2, but these ideas are too close in content to work independently. This means that ideas 2 and 3 must be added to support another idea, like so. 2 + 3 ? Once we see this, we can ask ourselves what idea follows from 2 and 3 taken together, and the answer is “George is irrational.” 2 + 3 George is irrational.


14

Because “George is irrational” isn’t stated in the argument, it’s a missing subconclusion. I’ll note it by actually adding it to the passage, like this:

“It’s clear that 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional; 3. emotional people are irrational [a. George is irrational] and we need a rational club president.”

2 + 3

a At this point, ideas 2 and 3 have basically done their job. They are in the argument give us the subconclusion “George is irrational,” so once we’ve reached that subconclusion, we don’t need to keep track of ideas 2 and 3 anymore. The only idea we need to bear in mind is “George is irrational.” Continuing to read, we come to “We need a rational club president.” This is another important idea, which I’ll give number 4.

“It’s clear that 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional; 3. emotional people are irrational [a. George is irrational] and 4. we need a rational club president.”

And now, once again, we have to important ideas on board: idea “a” (“George is irrational”) and idea “4” (“We need a rational club president.”) As we’ve seen, these ideas have to be related in one of three ways: either one of the ideas supports the other (i.e. there’s an arrow between them), or they work together to support a third idea (i.e. there’s a plus between them), or they each support some other idea on their own (i.e. each of the ideas has an arrow going from it to some other idea.) “George is irrational” (“a”) and “We need a rational club president” (“4”), are too closely related to each other to work independently, but neither one is a reason to believe the other. This means that they must be combined to support some other idea: a + 4 ? So, what follows from “George is irrational” and “We need a rational club president?” Something like “George shouldn’t be club president.” Because this is the ultimate conclusion of the argument, we can see that “a” and “4” lead us to “1” a + 4 1


15

The entire argument, then, would be diagrammed as follows:

“It’s clear that 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional; 3. emotional people are irrational [a. George is irrational] and 4. we need a rational club president.” 2 + 3 a + 4 1

Get the idea? Instead of adding 2, 3, and 4 and then finding missing the subconclusion, we added the missing subconclusion as we went along. We did this by continually asking ourselves how the important ideas were related to each other. Seeing that ideas 2 and 3 were most logically added together, we noted that the conclusion that followed from them wasn’t explicitly stated in the passage. We then added that subconclusion and proceed to identify the next important idea. Seeing that ideas “a” and 4 were most naturally added together, we noted that the ultimate conclusion could be inferred from them. This, of course, allowed us to complete our diagram. Adding missing subconclusions as we go along, as we’ve just done, can go a long way toward enhancing reading comprehension. It’s also relatively easy, once we get the hang of supplying missing subconclusions. Accordingly, this is the approach I’ll use from here on out. Back to Evaluating the Argument Now that we’ve seen how to add missing subconclusions, let’s assess this argument:



16

Stop and Think Evaluate inferences A1 and A2. When you’ve evaluated A1 and A2, evaluate premises 2, 3, and 4. It seems to me that someone who believes ideas 2 and 3 is bound to believe the missing subconclusion ‘a,’ so inference A1 is good. It also seems to me that someone who believes missing subconclusion ‘a’ and idea 4 will believe the ultimate conclusion, so inference A2 is good as well.

“It’s clear that George shouldn’t be president of the club. George is emotional; emotional people are irrational and we need a rational club president.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. George is emotional. 3. Emotional people are irrational. a. George is irrational. 4. We need a rational club president. 2 + 3 A1 ☺ a + 4 A2 ☺ 1

The problem with this argument, I think, is premise 3. I’ve never found that one’s capacity for emotion interferes with one’s capacity for reason, and this makes the argument bad as a whole.



17

Summary Here’s one way to analyze and evaluate this argument:


This argument has taught us Argument evaluation skills, specifically

how to break one “three reason” inference into two “two reason” inferences by adding a missing subconclusion. This is useful because it’s often easier to evaluate “two reason” inferences than “three reason” inferences.

Example 4

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Now let’s take a look at another passage.

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? I think that this passage is trying to do more than explain why something is the case. It’s is trying to convince us of something, so this passage contains an argument. Step 2 – Analyzing the Argument


18

Now that we know this passage contains an argument, we can diagram it. Let’s practice the process of active reading that we went through for the previous example, keeping track of the important ideas and adding missing subconclusions as we go along. Stop and Think What is the ultimate conclusion of this argument? What are the next two important ideas? The ultimate conclusion is the claim that George wouldn’t be a good club president and the next two important ideas are “If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased” and “If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president.” I’ll mark these in the text.

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.”

Because we normally deal with ideas two at a time, and because we have identified two ideas that help to support the conclusion, we should stop and think about how these ideas are related to each other. Stop and Think How are ideas 2 and 3 related to each other? Is one of these ideas a reason to believe the other? Are they dependent reasons in support of another idea? Or do they each support some idea on their own? Looking at ideas 2 and 3, I don’t think that 2 is a reason to believe 3 and I don’t think that 3 is a reason to believe 2. It certainly seems to me as though they are connected to each other somehow, though, so I’d say that they are dependent reason in support of some other idea. But the question is, what idea?

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 2 + 3 ??

Stop and Think


19

What follows from “If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased” and “If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president?” (If you’re having trouble figuring this out, use the puzzle piece test.) Is this idea explicitly stated in the argument, or is it a missing subconclusion? If we know that if George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased (idea 2) and that if George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president (idea 3), we can conclude that if George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. This can be difficult to see because of all the negations (“weren’t” and “wouldn’t”) in these ideas. The key is to note what ideas 2 and 3 have in common (George not being biased) and using the puzzle piece method to combine the left-over notion from idea 2 (George not being emotional) with the left-over notion from idea 3 (George being a good club president). Now, is the idea “If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president,” explicitly stated in the argument? No, so this idea is a missing subconclusion. I’ll insert it in the passage, using brackets and giving it the letter “a” to indicate that this idea wasn’t stated in the original argument.

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But George is emotional.” 2 + 3 a

2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased.

3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. +



If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.

If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.


20

At this point, ideas 2 and 3 have basically done their job. They are in the argument to bring us to subconclusion “a,” so for the purposes of analyzing the argument, we can forget about ideas 2 and 3 and simply continue to keep “a” in mind. The next sentence, “George is emotional,” gives us our last important idea, which I’ll note with number “4.”

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But 4. George is emotional.” 2 + 3 a

And now again, because we normally deal with ideas two at a time, and because we have two ideas in play (ideas “a” and “4”), we should stop and think about how these ideas are related to each other. Stop and Think How are ideas “a” and “4” related to each other? Is one of these ideas a reason to believe the other? Are they dependent reasons in support of another idea? Or do they each support some idea on their own? Looking at ideas “a” and “4”, I don’t think that “a” is a reason to believe “4” and I don’t think that “4” is a reason to believe “a”. It certainly seems to me as though they are connected to each other somehow, though, so I’d say that they are dependent reason in support of some other idea. But the question is, what idea? More to the point, what idea do you think the author intends to follow from “a” and “4”?

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But 4. George is emotional.” 2 + 3 a + 4 ??

Stop and Think


21

What idea do you think the author intends to follow from “If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president” and “George is emotional”? Is this idea explicitly stated in the argument, or is it a missing subconclusion? It seems to me that the author wants us to conclude that George wouldn’t be a good club president from “If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president” (idea ‘a’) and “George is emotional” (idea 4). And since George wouldn’t be a good club president is the ultimate conclusion of this argument, we’ve completed the diagram.

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But 4. George is emotional.” 2 + 3 a + 4 1

a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.

4. George is emotional. +George wouldn’t be a good club president.


22

Do you see how we added the missing subconclusion as we diagrammed by keeping track of what ideas were “in play” and determining how they were related to each other? This is a very good habit to develop because it will help you to follow complex chains of reasoning.1

1 Of course, we could have diagram the argument without adding a missing subconclusion. First, we’d identify the important ideas in the passage, like this:

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But 4. George is emotional.”

Then, after noting that neither idea 2, idea 3, nor idea 4 could support the conclusion on its own,

we would determine that there is only one line of reasoning in the argument. (If there were three lines of reasoning then ideas 2, 3, and 4 would each have to support 1 on its own, and if there were two lines of reasoning then either idea 2, idea 3, or idea 4 would have to support 1 on its own. For example, if ideas 2 and 3 are together in one line of reasoning, then idea 4 is on its own.) Since there is only one line of reasoning in this argument, we’d know that ideas that ideas 2, 3, and 4 all work together to prove 1, but how?

Some thought would show us that none of these ideas are subconclusions. (If idea 2 is a subconclusion, it must follow from idea 3, from idea 4, or from ideas 3 and 4 together. But if you read up those inference arrows with “because,” you probably won’t be very happy with the results. If idea 3 is a subconclusion, it must follow from idea 2, from idea 4, or from ideas 2 and 4 together. But if you read up those inference arrows with “because,” you probably won’t be very happy with those results, either. Finally, if idea 4 is a subconclusion, it must follow from idea 2, from idea 3, or from ideas 2 and 3 together. But if you read up those inference arrows with “because,” you’ll probably be equally unhappy with those results.) It follows that ideas 2, 3 and 4 are all premises, and since we have only one line of reasoning, we get the following diagram:

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But 4. George is emotional.”

2 + 3 + 4 1 We could then add a missing subconclusion by noting that ideas 2 and 3 go together nicely and supplying the subconclusion that they generate.

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But 4. George is emotional.” a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. 2 + 3 a + 4 1


23

Step 3- Evaluating the Argument Now that we have this argument diagrammed, we can evaluate it. Let’s start by focusing on inference A (the top inference).

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But 4. George is emotional.” 2 + 3 A a + 4 B 1

Stop and Think Is inference A good or bad? Suppose Bob believes that if George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased (idea 2) and that if George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president (idea 3). Would Bob believe that if George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president? I think so. After all, if George weren’t emotional then (from 2) he wouldn’t be biased and (from 3) he’d be a good club president. Right?

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But 4. George is emotional.” 2 + 3 A ☺ a + 4 B 1

Inference Form: If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore if P then R (Hypothetical Syllogism) Not only is inference A is valid, it’s one of those relatively common inference types that we should remember. Notice the form of inference A.


24

A ☺ Both reasons are “if…then…” statements and the back part of one is the same as the front part of the other. The conclusion of the inference is composed of the “left-over” front part and back part. The inference has the form “If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore, if P then R.” See? A ☺ Any inference of the form “If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore, if P then R,” is valid. You can think of the two reasons as cars on a train that “hook together” at Q.

Since any inference of the form “If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore, if P then R,” is valid, and since inference A1 has this form, it’s valid too. Now we can turn to inference B, the bottom inference.



a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.

2. If P then Q. 3. If Q then R. +a. If P then R.

If P then Q.

If P then R.

If Q then R.


25

“It’s clear that 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. [a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president.] But 4. George is emotional.” 2 + 3 A ☺ a + 4 B 1

Stop and Think Is inference B good or bad? (Hint: What inference form does B have?) It looks like B might have one of the forms we’ve studied. Starting with the “If…then…” sentence (idea ‘a’) we see that P is “George isn’t emotional,” and Q is “George would be a good club president.”

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. If P then Q. 2 + 3 A ☺ a (If P then Q) + 4 B 1

Now, in terms of P’s and Q’s, what are ideas 4 and 1? Since P is “George isn’t emotional,” and since idea 4 is “George is emotional,” idea 4 is Opp P (or the opposite of P).

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president


26

2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. Opp P a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. If P then Q. 2 + 3 A ☺ a (If P then Q) + 4 (Opp P) B 1

And since Q is “George would be a good club president,” and since idea 1 is “George wouldn’t be a good club president,” idea 1 is Opp Q (or the opposite of Q).

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president Opp Q 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. Opp P a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. If P then Q. 2 + 3 A ☺ a (If P then Q) + 4 (Opp P) B 1 (Opp Q)

The form of inference A2 is “If P then Q. Opp P. Therefore Opp Q.” If you can’t remember whether or not this inference form us good, try it out using our standard example, letting P be “Max is a poodle,” and Q be “Max is an dog.” This gives us “If Max is a poodle then Max is a dog. Max is not a poodle. Therefore, Max is not a dog.” That doesn’t work (Max could be a schnauzer) so this inference is invalid. It’s the fallacy of negating the antecedent.

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.”


27

1. George wouldn’t be a good club president 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. 2 + 3 A ☺ a + 4 B 1

And since there’s only one line of reasoning, this makes the entire argument bad.

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. 2 + 3 A ☺ a + 4 B 1

Of course, this is only one way to find a missing subconclusion in this argument. There’s another. Instead of putting ideas 2 and 3 together, we could put ideas 2 and 4 together. From the claim that if George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased (idea 2) and the claim that George is emotional (idea 4) it’s natural (although not necessarily correct) to conclude that George is biased. Furthermore, from the claim that if George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president (idea 3), and the claim that George is biased, it’s natural (although not necessarily correct) to conclude that George wouldn’t be a good club president. This gives us the following diagram:


28

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. a. George is biased. 2 + 4 A a + 3 B 1

Notice how both inferences in this diagram are of the form “If P then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q,” and so both inferences are bad.

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president. 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. a. George is biased. 2 + 4 A a + 3 B 1

In our previous diagram, only one inference was of this form while the other inference was valid. Does this mean that the argument is worse, analyzed this new way, than it is when it’s analyzed the way we did at first? No. In our first argument, we put both “if…then…” statements together, so when we used the resulting “if…then…” statement in the bad inference, we effectively did the bad inference over both “if…then…”s. Summary Here’s how we analyzed and evaluated this argument:


29

“It’s clear that George wouldn’t be a good club president. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. But George is emotional.” 1. George wouldn’t be a good club president 2. If George weren’t emotional then he wouldn’t be biased. 3. If George weren’t biased then he’d be a good club president. 4. George is emotional. a. If George weren’t emotional then he’d be a good club president. 2 + 3 A ☺ a + 4 B 1

This argument taught us Argument evaluation skills, specifically a new valid argument form: “If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore if P then R.”

(Hypothetical Syllogism)

Example 5 Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument This passage contains another argument.

“Obviously George shouldn’t be president of the club. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.”

The Dilemmas Before we begin to analyze this argument, let’s pause a bit to introduce two new inferences. Remember how I said that with a couple of notable exceptions people tend to put ideas together two, not three, at a time? Well, we’re about to see these two exceptions. To understand the first exception, suppose I tell you “P or Q,” “If P then R,” and “If Q then R.” What follows from all of these ideas added together?


30

Do you see it? “R” follows. Our first idea tells us that we either have P or Q; we don’t know which we have, but we for sure have one of them. Our second idea tells us what will happen if we have P: we’ll end up with R. Our third idea tells us what will happen if we have Q: we’ll end up with R. It follows that we’ll end up with R either way. This inference form is called a “Simple Dilemma.” It’s a dilemma because it has that “or” statement and because dilemmas are often “or” statements that present us with an unresolved choice. (For example, “What should I do? Accept the job offer and move to a strange city, or remain close to family and friends while keeping a job that I don’t enjoy? It’s a real dilemma!”). It’s simple because no matter which option comes to pass, the result will be the same. Whenever we have an “or” statement and two “if… then…” statements where the things “or”ed take turns as the “if” parts of the “if…then…”s and the “then” parts of the

P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. + +???

P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. + +R.




31

“if…then…”s are the same, we have a Simple Dilemma and we may validly infer the back part of the “if…then…” Now suppose I tell you “P or Q,” “If P then R,” and “If Q then S.” What follows from these ideas added together? Do you see it? “R or S” follows. Our first idea tells us that we either have P or Q; we don’t know which we have, but we for sure have one of them. Our second idea tells us what will happen if we have P: we’ll end up with R. Our third idea tells us what will happen if we have Q: we’ll end up with S. It follows that we’ll end up with either R or S. This inference form is called a “Complex Dilemma.” It’s a dilemma because it has that “or” statement, like the Simple Dilemma does. It’s complex because – unlike a Simple Dilemma - it stipulates that each of the options will give us a different result.

P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. + +???

P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. + +R or S.

P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. + +R or S.

P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. + +R or S.


32

Whenever we have an “or” statement and two “if… then…” statements where the things “or”ed take turns as the “if” parts of the “if…then…”s and the “then” parts of the “if…then…”s are the different, we have a Complex Dilemma and we may validly infer “or” statement composed of the “then” parts of the “if…then…” Simple Dilemmas and Complex Dilemmas are the only cases in which we naturally combine ideas three at a time rather than two at a time, so if we’re faced with one of those Dilemmas, we don’t need to worry about finding missing subconclusions in order to add ideas together in pairs. Step 2 – Analyzing the Argument Now that we’ve learned about Simple and Complex Dilemmas, let’s analyze this argument.

“Obviously George shouldn’t be president of the club. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.”

I think that “George shouldn’t be president of the club” is the ultimate conclusion.

“Obviously 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.”

“Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest,” and “If he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club,” are the next two important ideas.

“Obviously 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But 3. if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.”

Because we have two important ideas (in addition to the ultimate conclusion) “in play,” and because we normally deal with ideas two at a time, let’s stop to think about how these two ideas are related to each other. One of these two ideas is an “or” statement, and the other idea is an “if…then…” statement that takes the first thing “or”ed as its “if” part. See?

2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club.


33

This tells me that we might be on our way to a Dilemma, so let’s look at the next important idea in the argument – idea 4.

“Obviously 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But 3. if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and 4. if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.”

Now I know that we have a Dilemma, because idea 4 is another “if…then…” statement and because it takes the other thing “or”ed as its “if” part.

2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club. 4. If he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.

The final thing we need to observe is that the “then” part of the two “if…then…” statements is the same.

2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club. 4. If he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.

This means that we have a Simple Dilemma and that we may validly infer the common “then” part of the two “if…then…”s from those three ideas added together. And what is that common “then” part? Our ultimate conclusion that George shouldn’t be president of the club! When ideas 2, 3, and 4 are added together, they lead directly to 1.

“Obviously George shouldn’t be president of the club. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club. 2. Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s

dishonest.


34

3. If George is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club.

4. If George is dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club. 2 + 3 + 4

A 1

Because inference A is a Simple Dilemma, it’s fine to add three ideas without worrying about supplying a missing subconclusion; they “click together” on their own. Step 2 – Evaluating the Argument Simple Dilemmas are valid inferences, so we know that inference A is impeccable.


dishonest. 3. If George is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be

president of the club. 4. If George is dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.

2 + 3 + 4

A ☺ (A Simple Dilemma) 1

If there is something wrong with this argument, the fault must lie with the inferences, and I’d say that 3 is the weakest of the lot. How emotional, exactly, does George appear to be? If he appears to be raving mad all the time then he probably shouldn’t be president of the club and premise 3 is true. If he cries at sad movies, however, then there shouldn’t be a problem with his presidency and premise 3 is false. Because I don’t know how emotional George seems to be, I’ll give 3, and hence the entire argument, a mediocre rating.

“Obviously George shouldn’t be president of the club. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. But if he is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club, and if he’s dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.” 1. George shouldn’t be president of the club.


35

2. Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest.

3. If George is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be president of the club.

4. If George is dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club. 2 + 3 + 4

A ☺ 1

Summary Here’s how we analyzed and evaluated this argument:


dishonest. 3. If George is actually as emotional as he appears to be then he shouldn’t be

president of the club. 4. If George is dishonest then he shouldn’t be president of the club.

2 + 3 + 4

A ☺ 1

This example taught us Argument evaluation skills, specifically

That “Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. Therefore R” is a valid argument form called “Simple Dilemma.”

That if an inference is Simple Dilemma we needn’t supply a missing subconclusion to simplify the assessment of the inference.

Example 6

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s another passage for us to consider.


36

“Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. And if he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. Therefore, either George is weak or he’s unethical.”

This passage contains an argument because it’s trying to convince us that something is true. Step 2 – Analyzing the Argument The idea of which the passage is trying to convince us, the ultimate conclusion of the argument, is the claim that either George is weak or he’s unethical. (The conclusion indicator expression “therefore” can help us to see that.)

“Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. And if he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. Therefore, 1. either George is weak or he’s unethical.”

The next two important ideas are “Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest” and “If he’s emotional then he’s weak.”

“2. Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. And if he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. Therefore, 1. either George is weak or he’s unethical.”

Do you notice anything about these ideas? Once again we have an “or” statement and an “if…then…” statement that takes one of the things “or”ed as its “if” part!

2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he is actually emotional then he’s weak.

This means that we might be on our way to a Dilemma, so let’s take a look at the next important idea in the argument – idea 4.

“2. Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. And 4. if he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. Therefore, 1. either George is weak or he’s unethical.”

Once again, my suspicion that we have a Dilemma has been confirmed because idea 4 presents us with another “if…then…” statement and because this “if…then…” statement takes the other thing “or”ed as its “if” part.


37

2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he is actually emotional then he’s weak. 4. If he’s dishonest then he’s unethical.

Unlike the “if…then…” statements in the previous argument, however, the “then” parts of the two “if…then…”s in this argument are different.

2. Either he’s actually as emotional as he appears to be or else he’s dishonest. 3. If he is actually emotional then he’s weak. 4. If he’s dishonest then he’s unethical.

This tells us that we have a Complex Dilemma and that we may validly infer the “or” statement composed of the “then” parts of the “if…then…”s. And what is that “or” statement? The claim that George is weak or he’s unethical, which is just the ultimate conclusion of our argument! When ideas 2, 3, and 4 are added together, they lead directly to 1.

“Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. And if he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. Therefore, either George is weak or he’s unethical.”

1. Either George is weak or he’s unethical. 2. Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s

dishonest. 3. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. 4. If he’s dishonest then he’s unethical.

2 + 3 + 4

A 1 Because inference A is a Complex Dilemma, it’s fine to add three ideas without worrying about supplying a missing subconclusion; these three ideas “click together” on their own quite nicely. Step 2 – Evaluating the Argument Complex Dilemmas are valid inferences, so we know that inference A is impeccable.


38



dishonest. 3. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. 4. If he’s dishonest then he’s unethical.

2 + 3 + 4

A ☺ (A Complex Dilemma) 1 Any problems with this argument must lie in the premises. And, as with Example 4, I’d say that 3 is the weakest. Just how emotional is George? If he can never hold it together for ten seconds at a time, then he might be weak and premise 3 might be true. But again, if he cries at sad movies, he needn’t be weak and premise 3 would be false. Because we aren’t told emotional George seems to be, I think that premise 3, and so the whole argument, is mediocre.



dishonest. 3. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. 4. If he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. 2 + 3 + 4 A ☺

1 Summary We analyzed and evaluated this argument as follows:


1. Either George is weak or he’s unethical.


39

2. Either George is actually as emotional as he appears to be, or else he’s dishonest.

3. If he’s emotional then he’s weak. 4. If he’s dishonest then he’s unethical. 2 + 3 + 4 A ☺

1 This example taught us Argument evaluation skills, specifically

That “Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. Therefore R or S” is a valid argument form called “Complex Dilemma.”

That if an inference is Complex Dilemma we needn’t supply a missing subconclusion to simplify the assessment of the inference.

Example 7

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Let’s take this one from the top. Does it contain an argument or not? Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, nor neither an argument nor an explanation of why?

“Whatever you do, don’t vote for Joan! An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, we need a club president who can be ethical, and Joan isn’t emotional.”

This passage contains the inference indicator word “since,” so I’m inclined to think that it contains either an argument or an explanation of why. I don’t, however, think that this argument is primarily trying to explain why something is the case, so I maintain that this passage contains an argument. Step 2 – Analyzing the Argument The first thing I see is that the conclusion of this argument is “You shouldn’t vote for Joan.”

“Whatever you do, don’t 1. [you shouldn’t] vote for Joan! An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so only emotional people can be ethical.


40

Obviously, though, we need a club president who can be ethical, and Joan isn’t emotional.”

1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan.

The second sentence contains the conclusion indicator expression “so,” so I know that the idea “An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion,” is being given as reason to believe the idea “only emotional people can be ethical.”

“Whatever you do, don’t 1. [you shouldn’t] vote for Joan! 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so 3. only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, we need a club president who can be ethical, and Joan isn’t emotional.”

1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical.

I suspect that 2 is a premise that has served its purpose in supporting 3. This means that idea 3, “Only emotional people can be ethical,” is the idea that I need to bear in mind. While bearing idea 3 in mind, I see that the next important idea is “we need a club president who can be ethical.”

“Whatever you do, don’t 1. [you shouldn’t] vote for Joan! 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so 3. only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, 4. we need a club president who can be ethical, and Joan isn’t emotional.”

1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need a club president who can be ethical.

At this point, we have two ideas “in play”: idea 3 and idea 4. Furthermore, neither one of these ideas is a “or” statement so the argument isn’t setting up a Simple or Complex Dilemma. This means that we might want to think about how these ideas are related to each other. Stop and Think How are ideas 3 and 4 related to each other? Is one of these ideas a reason to believe the other? Are they dependent reasons in support of another idea? Or do they each support some idea on their own?


41

Looking at ideas 3 and 4, I don’t think that 3 is a reason to believe 4 and I don’t think that 4 is a reason to believe 3. It certainly seems to me as though they are connected to each other somehow, though, which means that they’re probably dependent reason in support of some other idea. But what idea?


1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need a club president who can be ethical. ?. ???

Stop and Think What follows from “Only emotional people can be ethical” (idea 3) and “We need a club president who can be ethical” (idea 4)? Is this idea explicitly stated in the argument, or is it a missing subconclusion? If we believe that only emotional people can be ethical (idea 3) and that we need a club president who can be ethical (idea 4), we would be led to infer that we need an emotional club president. Because this idea isn’t explicitly stated anywhere in the argument, let’s add it to our list of ideas as a missing subconclusion.


1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need a club president who can be ethical. a. We need an emotional club president.

At this stage of analysis, we can focus exclusively on the claim that we need an emotional club president because everything in the argument so far has brought us to this idea. Continuing to read, I see “Joan isn’t emotional,” the last important idea in the passage.


42

“Whatever you do, don’t 1. [you shouldn’t] vote for Joan! 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so 3. only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, 4. we need a club president who can be ethical, and 5. Joan isn’t emotional.”

1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need a club president who can be ethical. a. We need an emotional club president. 5. Joan isn’t emotional.

Once again, we have two ideas “in play” - idea ‘a’ and idea 5 – so we should stop and think about how these ideas are related to each other. Stop and Think How are ideas “a” and “5” related to each other? Is one of these ideas a reason to believe the other? Are they dependent reasons in support of another idea? Or do they each support some idea on their own? Looking at ideas “a” and “5”, I don’t think that “a” is a reason to believe “5” and I don’t think that “5” is a reason to believe “a”. It certainly seems to me as though they are connected to each other somehow, though, so I’d say that they are dependent reason in support of some other idea. Stop and Think What follows from “We need an emotional club president” (idea “a”) and “Joan isn’t emotional?” (idea 5)? It looks to me like “a” and 5, taken together, give us “Joan shouldn’t be club president,” which is very close to “You shouldn’t vote for Joan” – the ultimate conclusion of the argument. At this point, then, our diagram is complete!


43

“Whatever you do, don’t 1. [you shouldn’t] vote for Joan! 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so 3. only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, 4. we need a club president who can be ethical, and 5. Joan isn’t emotional.”

1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need a club president who can be ethical. a. We need an emotional club president. 5. Joan isn’t emotional.

2 A 3 + 4 B a + 5

C 1 Step 3 – Evaluating the Argument Now that we’ve diagrammed the argument, we can evaluate it. Stop and Think Evaluate this argument. Is it good or bad? If you think it’s bad, what premise or inference do you think is the most problematic? Not knowing Joan, I’ll accept premise 5 for the sake of discussion. And premise 4 seems pretty safe, as well. It’s good to have ethical club presidents.

“Whatever you do, don’t vote for Joan! An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, we need a club president who can be ethical, and Joan isn’t emotional.” 1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need club president who can be ethical. a. We need an emotional club president. 5. Joan isn’t emotional.


44

2

A 3 + 4 ☺ B a + 5 ☺

C 1 Inference A seems okay to me. Provided that an action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion, only emotional people can be ethical (assuming that, by “emotional people,” we mean people who are capable of having emotions).

“Whatever you do, don’t vote for Joan! An action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotion so only emotional people can be ethical. Obviously, though, we need a club president who can be ethical, and Joan isn’t emotional.” 1. You shouldn’t vote for Joan. 2. An action is ethical only if it stems from right emotion. 3. Only emotional people can be ethical. 4. We need club president who can be ethical. a. We need an emotional club president. 5. Joan isn’t emotional. 2

A ☺ 3 + 4 ☺ B a + 5 ☺

C 1 But I don’t think that we should accept premise 2 too easily. It isn’t obviously true that an action is ethical only if it stems from the right emotions, and some thinkers (particularly utilitarians, who measure the ethical status of an action by its consequences) would strenuously disagree. If I give money to charity, and improve the lives of many people by doing so, does it matter if I give cheerfully, or resentfully, or apathetically? Personally, I’m not sure. I think this is a tricky issue, and exactly because I think it’s a tricky issue, I don’t think that idea 3 should be taken for granted. And if an idea shouldn’t be taken for granted, it’s a bad premise. This is enough to make this argument bad.


45


A ☺ 3 + 4 ☺ B a + 5 ☺

C 1 Summary Here’s how we analyzed and evaluated this argument:


A ☺ 3 + 4 ☺ B a + 5 ☺

C 1 This argument gave us more practice adding missing subconclusions as we analyze an argument.


46

Example 8 Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s another passage for us to consider:

“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? Because this passage contains inference indicator expressions (i.e. “since” and “thus”) chances are excellent that it’s either an argument or an explanation of why. And I think that this passage is doing more than explaining why something is the case, so I think that it contains an argument. Step 2 – Analyzing the Argument Since this passage contains an argument, we should diagram it. The ultimate conclusion is “an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”

“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, 1. an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”

1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. The first sentence in this passage gives us an important idea.

“2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor,


47

however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, 1. an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”

1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the

actor or from consequences of the act. The second sentence gives us two important ideas. Furthermore, because the second sentence contains the inference indicator word “since,” we know that “the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict,” (idea 4) is being given as a reason to believe “The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the act” (idea 3).

“2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. 3. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since 4. the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, 1. an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”


actor or from consequences of the act. 3. The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the

act. 4. The consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to

predict.

At this point, we can probably focus our attention on ideas 2 and 3 because idea 4 may have already fulfilled its function in this argument. Looking at ideas 2 and 3, it seems to me that they go together really well. Stop and Think What idea follows from 2 (“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act”) and 3 (“The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the act”) taken together? If someone believes that the ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act (idea 2) and that the ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the act (idea 3), they’ll be naturally led to believe that the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor.


48

This, then, is the subconclusion that follows from ideas 2 and 3. Because this idea is probably going to be important, I’ll add it to our list of ideas, but I won’t give it a number or a letter yet since we don’t know whether or not it will be stated explicitly later.




predict. ?. The ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor.

Inference Form: Either P or Q. Opp P (Opp Q). Therefore Q (P) (Disjunctive Syllogism) Before we continue with this diagram, let’s reflect for a moment upon the inference that takes from ideas 2 and 3 to the subconclusion that we just wrote down. The first thing to notice is that idea 2 is an “either / or” sentence.

1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of

the actor or from consequences of the act. Either P or Q 3. The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the



Idea 3 is the opposite of one of the ideas connected with the “or.”

1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of

the actor or from consequences of the act. Either P or Q 3. The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the

act. Opp Q 4. The consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to


And the subconclusion is the other idea connected with the “or.”

1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason.


49

2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act.

Either P or Q 3. The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the

act. Opp Q 4. The consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to

predict. ?. The ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor. P

An inference of this form is always valid. After all, if we have either P or Q, and we don’t have Q, then we must have P. Similarly, if we have either P or Q, and we don’t have P, then we must have Q. This argument form is called “Disjunctive Syllogism,” because “or” statements are called “disjunctions.” Looking at the list of ideas and inferences that we’ve developed so far, it’s probably safe to say that the purpose of ideas 2, 3 and 4 is to bring us to the subconclusion “the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor.” This, then, is the idea that we should bear in mind as we continue reading the passage. And, continuing to read, the next idea we hit upon is, “if the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions.”

“2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. 3. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since 4. the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. 5. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, 1. an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”





I notice two things when I read this sentence. The first thing I notice is that it isn’t the subconclusion that we previously identified. Because this would be a good time for the author to state that subconclusion, if she’s going to state it at all, it looks like we can


50

give this subconclusion a letter instead of a number, identifying it as a missing subconclusion.





predict. a. The ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor. 5. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor,

however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions.

The second thing I notice is that idea 5 works very well with the missing subconclusion. Stop and Think What idea follows from ideas ‘a’ and 5 taken together? Someone who believes ideas ‘a’ and 5 will be inclined to believe that either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions, so let’s put this in our list of ideas, once again not giving it a letter or a number until we know whether or not the author will explicitly state this idea.




51

2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act.

3. The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the act.

4. The consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict.

a. The ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor. 5. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor,


?. Either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions.

The next sentence in the passage is “As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion.”

“2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. 3. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since 4. the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. 5. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. 6. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, 1. an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”






?. Either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions.

Because this isn’t the subconclusion that we just identified, chances are good that the subconclusion that we just identified will remain unstated and we can give it the letter “b.”

“2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. 3. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since 4. the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or


52

power to predict. 5. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. 6. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, 1. an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”






b. Either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions.

And because “an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion,” is important, we’ll put it in our list.








6 An action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion


53

At this point, ideas ‘b’ and 6 are the only ideas we need to think about, because they are the only ideas that haven’t done anything in the argument yet. Stop and Think What should we do with ideas ‘b’ and 6? Looking at ‘b’ and 6, we can see that they should be added together to give us the ultimate conclusion. (In fact, this is another instance of Disjunctive Syllogism.)








6 An action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion Our diagram, then, looks like this:

“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, an action is ethical if it stems from reason.”


54

1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or

from consequences of the act. 3. The ethical worth of an action can’t stem from the consequences of the act. 4. The consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. a. The ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor. 5. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor,



6 An action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. 4 A 2 + 3 B a + 5 C b + 6 D 1

Unlike the previous arguments we’ve seen, this argument has more than one missing subconclusion. What is shows us, however, that the process of finding missing subconclusions is the same no matter how many missing subconclusions there are: we simply notice what ideas go together nicely and keep track of subconclusions that follow from these ideas. Not only does this make the argument easier to understand, it also reduces one big inference into multiple smaller inferences that are easier to evaluate. By the way, we wanted to analyze the argument before we added the missing subconclusions, we’d get this diagram:

4 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 D 1

Then we’d add the missing subconclusions by asking “What two ideas go together well?” and beginning the process of “pairing down.” You might be able to see, at this point, why I prefer to add the missing subconclusions as I diagram. Adding missing subconclusions as I read helps me to understand the passage better and obviates the need for me to add four ideas at once (which can be hard to do because people generally put two pieces of information together at a time).


55

Step 3 – Evaluating the Argument Now that we’ve diagrammed the argument, we can evaluate it. Stop and Think Do all of the inferences and premises seem okay to you?

“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, an action is ethical if it stems from reason.” 1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or




6. An action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. 4 A 2 + 3 B a + 5 C b + 6 D 1

Inference B is a disjunctive syllogism. Inference C is modus ponens. And inference D is another disjunctive syllogism. All of those inferences, then, are valid. If there’s a problem with this argument, it must lie with inference A or with one of the premises. The weakest link here, I think, is premise 6. Why can’t an action be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion? In fact, don’t we quite often think that an action is


56

good if it stems from compassion or sympathy and bad if it stems from malice? I suspect that premise 6 is false. At the very least, it requires support and so is a bad premise.

“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, an action is ethical if it stems from reason.” 1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or






“The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or from consequences of the act. It can’t stem from the consequences of the act, though, since the consequences of an act are partly beyond our control or power to predict. If the ethical worth of an action stems from the motivation of the actor, however, then either an action is good if it stems from reason or an action is good if it stems from certain emotions. As we’ve seen, an action can’t be ethical


57

in virtue of stemming from a certain emotion. Thus, an action is ethical if it stems from reason.” 1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. The ethical worth of an action stems either from the motivation of the actor or





This argument taught us a number of skills, including: Argument analysis skills, specifically how to add multiple missing subconclusions as we analyze an argument.

Argument evaluation skills, specifically that inferences of the form “Either P or Q. Opp P (Opp Q.) Therefore Q (P)” are

valid.

Example 9 Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s another passage for us to consider.

“The principle of universalizability maintains that an action is ethical only if we could rationally want everyone else to behave in the same way. It’s one version of Kant’s categorical imperative, which Kant believed to follow from the dictates of reason.”


58

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? I don’t think that this passage contains an argument because I don’t think that it’s trying to convince us of anything by advancing other ideas as evidence. I also don’t think that this passage is trying to account for why something is the case, so I don’t think that this passage contains an explanation of why. This passage, it seems to me, is simply telling us what the principle of universalizability is. Summary This passage contains neither an argument nor an explanation of why.

“The principle of universalizability maintains that an action is ethical only if we could rationally want everyone else to behave in the same way. It’s one version of Kant’s categorical imperative, which Kant believed to follow from the dictates of reason.”

Example 10

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Now let’s consider this passage.

“The principle of universalizability is appealing to scientists because scientists are comfortable thinking in terms of rules that apply universally.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? I see that this passage contains the inference indicator expression “because,” so I suspect that it contains either an argument or an explanation of why. The target of the passage is “the principle of universalizability is appealing to scientists.” If this passage contains an argument, it’s trying to get us to believe that claim. If this passage contains an explanation, it’s simply explaining why this claim is true. Personally, I think that this passage contains an explanation of why. I don’t see it trying to convince us that the principle of universalizability is appealing to scientists as much as attempting to account for why scientists find the principle of universalizability appealing. Summary


59

This passage is trying to account for the popularity of the principle of universalizability among scientists without attempting to persuade us of that popularity. This makes the passage an explanation of why.

“The principle of universalizability is appealing to scientists because scientists are comfortable thinking in terms of rules that apply universally.”

Example 11

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s another passage. I think this one is trickier.

“Because an action is ethical if it stems from reason and because reason is based on a respect for universal rules, an action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction, however, since if the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated without contradicting itself.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? This passage contains some inference indicator expressions (“because” and “since”) so I suspect that it contains either an argument or an explanation of why. And I think that this passage is attempting to do more than account for why something is the case. I think that this passage is trying to persuade us of something so I think that it contains an argument. Step 2 - Analyzing the Argument So this passage contains an argument. But what’s the ultimate conclusion? What is this passage trying to get us to believe? Stop and Think What is the ultimate conclusion of this argument?



60

If you ask me, this argument is trying to get us to believe an idea that isn’t explicitly stated anywhere in the passage. In other words, this argument has a missing ultimate conclusion. Can you tell what it is? You might have been able to identify the missing ultimate conclusion without much difficulty. If so, you should be rather pleased with yourself. Sometimes, however, identifying missing ultimate conclusions can be tricky, so I’d like to diagram this argument twice. First, I’ll walk you through the process of diagramming this argument without identifying the ultimate conclusion first. Then I’ll discuss how we would diagram the argument if we were able to spot the ultimate conclusion right away. Diagramming the Argument Without First Identifying the Ultimate Conclusion Remember, if we can’t decide what the ultimate conclusion is, we don’t worry about putting it first. We just write the ideas down in the order they appear in the passage, identify the inferences as best we can, and see where everything leads. So let’s do that now. The first sentence gives us three important ideas, and the “because… and because…” construction tell us that the first two of these ideas are dependent reasons in support of the third. This logical relationship is reinforced by is reinforced by the puzzle-piece method for identifying dependent reasons.


1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules. 3. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction.

At this point, idea 3 is the one to watch because ideas 1 and 2 have probably fulfilled their function in supporting idea 3. The second sentence in the passage gives us two more ideas, and the “since” tells us that the first of these ideas follows from the second.




61

2. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules. 3. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. 4. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction. 5. If the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated

without contradicting itself. Because idea 5 has probably done its job in supporting 4, ideas 3 and 4 the ones to think about. So what about ideas 3 and 4? They certainly appear to be connected to each other somehow. Maybe 3 is a conclusion stemming from 4. If so, we’d have an arrow going from 4 to 3, and reading up that arrow with “because” we’d get “An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction because lying can’t be universalized without contradiction.” That sounds funny, so I don’t think that 3 stems from 4. Maybe 4 is a conclusion stemming from 3. If so, we’d have an arrow going from 3 to 4, and reading up that arrow with “because” we’d get “Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction because an action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction because.” Again, I don’t particularly like that, so I don’t think that 4 stems from 3. Because 3 and 4 seem to belong together, and because neither one is evidence for the other, chances are excellent that 3 and 4 are dependent reasons leading to a missing ultimate conclusion:


1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules. 3. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. 4. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction. 5. If the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated

without contradicting itself. a. ???

Stop and Think What is the missing ultimate conclusion following from 3 and 4?


62

Looking at ideas 3 and 4, I see that they share the common notion of being universalized without contradiction and so the missing ultimate conclusion that stems from 3 and 4 must be composed of the “left-over” notions: “ethical action,” from 3 and “Lying can’t be” from 4. In short, 3 and 4 give us “Lying can’t be ethical,” or “Lying is unethical,” however you want to put it, so that must be the missing ultimate conclusion of this argument!


1. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 2. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules. 3. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. 4. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction. 5. If the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated

without contradicting itself. a. Lying can’t be ethical.

We’d diagram the argument as follows: 1 + 2 5 A B 3 + 4 C a Diagramming the Argument After First Identifying the Ultimate Conclusion So, we’ve seen that if we can’t identify the missing ultimate conclusion, or if we don’t immediately see that there is one, we can simply list the important ideas in the order they occur and start to draw in the inferences. Most of the time, if there’s a missing ultimate conclusion, it will “pop out” naturally. If we can identify a missing ultimate conclusion right away, of course, so much the better because knowing the ultimate conclusion can help us to decide what ideas are important and how to diagram the argument. If we are able to identify the missing ultimate conclusion right away, we start our list of important ideas with it, but we give it the letter “a” instead of the number “1,” reserving the use of “1” for explicit ultimate conclusions. We then let the next important idea be “2” and diagram the argument as usual.


63

In this argument, for instance, we might immediately recognize that the unstated ultimate conclusion is “Lying is unethical,” and arrive at the following list of ideas and diagram:


a. Lying can’t be ethical. 2. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 3. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules. 4. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. 5. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction. 6. If the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated

without contradicting itself. 2 + 3 6 A B 4 + 5 C a (As we saw when we diagrammed the argument earlier, the inference-indicator expression “because” tells us that ideas 2 and 3 support 4, and the inference-indicator expression “since” tells us that idea 6 supports idea 5. Ideas 4 and 5, taken together, prove that lying is unethical.) Step 3 – Evaluating the Argument So, we’ve diagrammed the argument. Now we can evaluate it. Stop and Think What do you think of this argument?

“Because an action is ethical if it stems from reason and because reason is based on a respect for universal rules, an action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction, however, since if the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated without contradicting itself.” a. Lying can’t be ethical. 2. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 3. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules.


64

4. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. 5. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction. 6. If the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated

without contradicting itself. 2 + 3 6 A B 4 + 5 C a Personally, I think the weakest part of this argument is premise 2. It might be true that an action is ethical if it stems from reason, but it isn’t obvious. Mightn’t someone think that an action is ethical if it stems from the right sort of emotion, instead? Because I don’t think that 2 is a good premise, I think this is a bad argument. 2 + 3 6 A B 4 + 5 C a Summary Here’s how we analyzed and evaluated this argument:

“Because an action is ethical if it stems from reason and because reason is based on a respect for universal rules, an action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction, however, since if the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated without contradicting itself.” a. Lying can’t be ethical. 2. An action is ethical if it stems from reason. 3. Reason is based on a respect for universal rules. 4. An action is ethical only if it can be universalized without contradiction. 5. Lying can’t be universalized without contradiction. 6. If the rule ‘Everyone should lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated

without contradicting itself.


65

2 + 3 6 A B 4 + 5 C a From this argument, we learned Argument analysis skills, specifically

how to diagram an argument that has a missing ultimate conclusion, that if we are unable to find the missing ultimate conclusion at the outset, we can

simply diagram the argument without worrying about what the ultimate conclusion is, and the missing ultimate conclusion will become apparent along the way.

Example 12

Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s another passage.

“Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? This passage contains the inference indicator expression “since,” so it’s probably an argument or an explanation of why. I suspect that it’s an argument, so let’s treat it as one. Step 2 - Analyzing the Argument You might be able to see the ultimate conclusion right away, but let’s diagram this argument as if we don’t see the ultimate conclusion. This will give us more practice taking the ideas as they come and seeing where they lead. Looking at the passage, we can see that not only do the first two sentences give us important ideas, but also that something follows from these ideas taken together.


66

“1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And 2. if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.”

1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness.

2. If everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity.

?. Stop and Think What follows from ideas 1 and 2? Is the idea that follows from 1 and 2 explicitly stated later in the passage, or not? If it’s the case that everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness (idea 1) and if it’s the case that if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity (idea 2), it follows that happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. This idea, then, must be the subconclusion following from ideas 1 and 2, and because it isn’t explicitly stated in the passage, let’s give it a letter instead of a number when include it in our analysis.

“1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And 2. if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.”



a. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Because ideas 1 and 2 have given us idea ‘a,’ they may have fulfilled their function in the argument and it’s idea ‘a,’ the claim that happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity, that we should bear in mind as we continue to read.


67

The next sentence in the passage contains two ideas and the inference indicator “since.” This not only tells us that the two ideas in this sentence are important, but it also indicates that the first of these ideas, “ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action,” is being give as a reason to believe the second of these ideas, “an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity.”

“1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And 2. if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since 3. ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, 4. an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.”



a. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. 3. Ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action. 4. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the

ultimate goal of human activity. Because idea 3 has supported idea 4, it may have completed its function in the argument. Ideas ‘a’ and 4, however, are still “in play,” so to speak, and if we look at them together, it appears that something follows from them. Stop and Think What follows from ideas ‘a’ and 4? Is the idea that follows from ‘a’ and 4 explicitly stated later in the passage, or not? If happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity (idea ‘a’), and if an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity (idea 4), it follows that an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of happiness. This is the subconclusion that follows from ideas ‘a’ and 4, and because it isn’t explicitly stated later on in the passage, we’ll include in it our analysis by giving it the letter ‘b’ instead of a number.

“1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And 2. if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since 3. ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, 4. an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.”


68

1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to

happiness. 2. If everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means

to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. a. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. 3. Ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action. 4. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the

ultimate goal of human activity. b. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of

happiness. At this point, we’ve made real progress! Everything so far in this passage has brought us to idea ‘b,’ so this is the only idea that we need to think about as we continue to read the argument. The next two sentences tell us that lying tends to make people unhappy – an important idea in this argument – and when we add this idea to our list of ideas, something follows from it.

“1. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And 2. if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since 3. ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, 4. an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. 5. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.”





happiness. 5. Lying tends to make people unhappy.

Stop and Think What follows from ideas ‘b’ and 5? If an action is ethical only insofar is assists the attainment of happiness (idea ‘b’), and if lying tends to make people unhappy (idea 5) then lying isn’t ethical. This, then, must be


69

the ultimate conclusion of this argument – the idea to which all of the other ideas in this argument ultimately point – and because it isn’t explicitly stated, we’ll give it the letter ‘c.’






happiness. 5. Lying tends to make people unhappy. c. Lying isn’t ethical

Diagrammed, the argument looks like this:

1 + 2 3 a + 4 b + 5 c

If we had identified the missing ultimate conclusion right away, we’d have assigned it the letter ‘a’ and started our list of ideas with the number ‘2.’ This would have given us the following diagram:


70


a. Lying isn’t ethical. 2. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to

happiness. 3. If everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means

to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. b. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. 4. Ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action. 5. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the

ultimate goal of human activity. c. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of

happiness. 6. Lying tends to make people unhappy.

2 + 3 4 b + 5 c + 6 a

For the sake of consistency (i.e. always allowing the ultimate conclusion to be 1 or ‘a’), this is the diagram that we’ll use as we evaluate the argument. Step 3 – Evaluating the Argument Now that we’ve diagrammed the argument, we can evaluate it. Stop and Think What do you think of this argument?

“Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action,


71

an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.” a. Lying isn’t ethical. 2. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to

happiness. 3. If everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to

happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. b. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. 4. Ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action. 5. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal

of human activity. c. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of happiness. 6. Lying tends to make people unhappy.

2 + 3 4 b + 5 c + 6 a

Personally, I’m not so sure about premise 3. It depends upon what “goal” means. If “goal” means “what people do, in fact, strive to attain,” then 3 is probably okay, but if it means “what people should strive to attain,” then 3 might not be okay. The fact that we do desire happiness above everything doesn’t mean that we ought to take happiness as our ultimate objective. Furthermore, it seems like we have to read “goal” in this second way, because that’s what the word must mean in idea 5, where the attainment of the goal is explicitly linked to the ethical status of one’s action. So, since 3 may be false under the reading that it has to have in order to be consistent with idea 5, I’ll say it’s bad. And this is enough to undermine the argument as a whole.

“Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.” a. Lying isn’t ethical.


72



b. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. 4. Ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action. 5. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal


2 + 3 4 b + 5 c + 6 a


“Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness. And if everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. Furthermore, since ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action, an action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal of human activity. What about lying, though? Clearly it tends to make people unhappy.” a. Lying isn’t ethical. 2. Everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to

happiness. 3. If everything is desired only for the happiness it contains or as a means to

happiness then happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. b. Happiness is the ultimate goal of all human activity. 4. Ethics has to do with the moral worth of human action. 5. An action is ethical only insofar as it assists the attainment of the ultimate goal



73

2 + 3 4 b + 5 c + 6 a

From this argument, we learned Argument analysis skills, specifically that an argument can have both missing subconclusions and a missing ultimate

conclusion.

Example 13 Step 1 – Recognizing an Argument Here’s one last passage for us to consider.

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”

Stop and Think Does this passage contain an argument, an explanation of why, or neither? It seems to me that this passage contains an argument.


74

Step 2 - Analyzing the Argument Since this passage contains an argument, we can identify its ultimate conclusion. Stop and Think What is the ultimate conclusion of this argument? If you have difficulty finding it here are some hints: Hint 1: The ultimate conclusion is actually in the passage. It isn’t a missing conclusion. Hint 2: The ultimate conclusion is hiding behind a masking statement. Hint 3: Look at the “for one thing” part and at the “for another thing” part. What are both parts trying to prove?


I think the ultimate conclusion is the idea that cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. (Is that what you decided?)

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the


75

use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.” 1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones.

The next thing I notice about this argument is that it contains two lines of reasoning: one line is signaled by the expression “for one thing” and has a “competent judges” theme, while the other line is signaled by the expression “for another thing” and has an “animal vs. human enjoyment” theme. (The sentences before the ultimate conclusion in the passage are only there to introduce the reader to the subject and so they don’t give us any ideas that are important to the argument.)

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.” 1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones.

Stop and Think Diagram the first line of reasoning, adding missing subconclusions as needed. Looking at the first line of reasoning, we get two important ideas: the claim that when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both and the claim that if this is the case then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better we should appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures.

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are


76

all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, 2. when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But 3. if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”

1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. 2. When trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal

to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. 3. If this is the case then when we’re trying to decide which of two

pleasures is better we should appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures.

From these two ideas, it follows that when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better we should appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures. Because this idea isn’t explicitly stated anywhere in the argument, I’ll include it as a missing subconclusion.

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, 2. when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But 3. if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”


77




a. When we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better we should appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures.

The next important idea in the passage is cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people, where “these people” refers to competent judges. And this idea works with very nicely with idea ‘a’ to give us the ultimate conclusion.

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, 2. when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But 3. if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, 4. cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”





4. Cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people.

Now we can turn to the next line of reasoning.


78

Stop and Think Diagram the second line of reasoning, adding missing subconclusions as needed. We could, if we wanted to, divide the first sentence in the second line of reasoning into two ideas, but I think I’ll keep it as one. I’ll keep the second sentence as one idea as well.

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, 2. when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But 3. if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, 4. cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, 5. uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. 6. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”






5. Uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do.

6. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans.

Looking at ideas 5 and 6, we can conclude that uncultivated pleasures can be enjoyed by animals while cultivated pleasures can be enjoyed only by humans, a missing subconclusion.


79

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, 2. when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But 3. if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, 4. cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, 5. uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. 6. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”








b. Uncultivated pleasures can be enjoyed by animals while cultivated pleasures can be enjoyed only by humans.

And this missing subconclusion works with the last sentence in the passage to give us the ultimate conclusion of the argument.

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that 1. cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing,


80

2. when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But 3. if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, 4. cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, 5. uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. 6. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, 7. something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.”









7. Something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.

The argument, then, is diagrammed like this:

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher


81

cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.” 1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. 2. When trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the

opinion of people who are competent judges of both. 3. If this is the case then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is

better we should appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures.







2 + 3 5 + 6 A C a + 4 b + 7

B D 1 This is not, of course, the only way to diagram this argument. Instead of adding ideas 2 and 3, we could have considered ideas 3 and 4 together, generating the missing subconclusion “If when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both, then cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones.” We could then have added this missing subconclusion to 2 to give us 1. Similarly, instead of adding ideas 5 and 6, we could have decided to combine ideas 6 and 7, getting the idea “Things that require higher cognitive faculties are better than things that don’t require higher cognitive facilities.” We could then have added this missing subconclusion to 5 to get us 1. Nevertheless, I think that the diagram we developed above is probably the most natural way to supply missing subconclusions because it address the ideas in the order that


82

they appear in the passage. This is the diagram that we’ll use for the purposes of evaluation. Step 3 – Evaluating the Argument Stop and Think What do you think of this argument?

“Utilitarianism maintains that action is ethical only insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of people, but what does ‘greatest happiness’ mean? Can happiness differ in its quality as well as its amount, or are all kinds of happiness equally worthwhile? If you give it some thought, you’ll see that cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. For one thing, when trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both. But if this is the case, then when we’re trying to decide which of two pleasures is better, shouldn’t we appeal to the opinion of people who are competent judges of both pleasures? And in fact, cultivated pleasures are preferred over uncultivated pleasures by most of these people. For another thing, uncultivated pleasures don’t require higher cognitive faculties, whereas cultivated pleasures do. Things that don’t require higher cognitive faculties can be enjoyed by animals, but things that require the use of higher cognitive faculties can only be enjoyed by humans. Obviously, something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy.” 1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. 2. When trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the










83

2 + 3 5 + 6 A C a + 4 b + 7

B D 1 Looking first at the left branch, I’m not too keen on premise 3. Premise 3 says that if we decide upon the quality of wines, or cars, by appealing to experts, then we should decide upon the quality of pleasures in the same way. But why should we? One could argue, I think, that pleasure is importantly different from things like wine and cars. For one thing, pleasure is what wines and cars are supposed to give us, whereas pleasure is usually considered to be an end in itself. For another thing, it’s possible to consider two wines, or two cars, side by side, and it’s possible to subject two wines, or two cars, to the judgment of many people at once. But neither of these things is true for pleasures. I can’t place one of my pleasures “next to” another, and nobody but I can have access to my pleasures. Since pleasure is so very different from other things, why should we assume that pleasure can be assessed in the same way as other things? Looking at the right branch, my attention is arrested by premise 7. Premise 7 claims that something that only humans can enjoy is better than something that animals can enjoy. But what reason do we, or could we, have to think this is true - especially since we can’t be another kind of animal in order to find out, for example, exactly how much fun chasing cars can be? Since both lines of reasoning are afflicted by a bad premise, the entire argument fails.



84

1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. 2. When trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the









2 + 3 5 + 6 A C a + 4 b + 7

B D 1 Summary Here’s how we analyzed and evaluated this argument:



85

1. Cultivated pleasures are better than uncultivated ones. 2. When trying to decide which of two wines, or cars, is better, we appeal to the









2 + 3 5 + 6 A C a + 4 b + 7

B D 1 From this argument, we learned Argument analysis skills, specifically how to find missing conclusions in an argument that has more than one line of

reasoning.

Real Life As we saw in Chapters 1-4, we might not always take the time to write out the diagram of an argument we’re examining, but we probably will apply many of the skills we’re learning. To see how this works with arguments like those we’ve seen in this chapter, let’s imagine that we overhear the following conversation.

Linda: “I just love to watch beauty pageants! I feel really good about them. They do so much to help women pursue their goals because they offer scholarships and other financial awards. Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function, in my book.”


86

Susan: “You must be crazy! Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. And anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.” Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you?”

We’ll start by considering Linda’s first argument. Example 1 Here’s Linda’s first argument again:


Stop and Think Try to analyze and evaluate this argument in your head. As usual, first identify the ultimate conclusion. Remember that the ultimate conclusion might not be explicitly stated. Then try to determine how many lines of reasoning there are. Focus on each line of reasoning, one at a time, and identify the important ideas contained in it. If you think that an idea is a premise, ask yourself whether or not it’s true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. If you think that an idea is a subconclusion, ask yourself whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). If you think that an idea is the ultimate conclusion, ask yourself whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). And now that we know about missing subconclusions, you can fill them in as you go along.


87

There’s a missing ultimate conclusion here, and I think I see it. Of course, sometimes we don’t see the ultimate conclusion, so let’s pretend that we don’t see it now, just to practice coping with this situation. Not knowing what the ultimate conclusion is, it’s hard for me to decide how many lines of reasoning converge upon it, so I’ll just start hunting for important ideas. The first thing I decide is that the first two sentences don’t look very important. They’re mostly expressions of Linda’s emotions, so I’ll ignore them.


The “because” in the next sentence tells me that second idea in that sentence is being given as a reason to believe the first. This makes the first idea a conclusion of some sort. And because I don’t think the argument trying to convince us that beauty pageants offer scholarships and other financial rewards, I’ll take the second idea as a premise.

Linda: “I just love to watch beauty pageants! I feel really good about them. (C) They do so much to help women pursue their goals because (P) they offer scholarships and other financial awards. Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function, in my book.”

The last sentence strikes me as important, too, and because I don’t see the argument giving us any reason to believe it, I’ll think of it as a premise.

Linda: “I just love to watch beauty pageants! I feel really good about them. (C) They do so much to help women pursue their goals because (P) they offer scholarships and other financial awards. (P) Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function, in my book.”

Now, the first premise, “pageants offer scholarships and other financial awards,” has given us the conclusion “pageants help women pursue their goals,” so it’s probably served its function. This means that we should focus on the conclusion, “pageants help women pursue their goals,” and the other premise, “anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function.” Stop and Think Does anything occur to you when you think of these ideas together? When I think of “beauty pageants help women pursue their goals,” and “anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function,” I notice that


88

thise ideas, taken together, would give us “beauty pageants serve an important social function.” If you have trouble seeing this, Let’s use our old friend, the Puzzle Piece Method. The ideas “beauty pageants help women pursue their goals,” and “anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function,” have “helping women to pursue their goals” in common.

“Beauty pageants help women pursue their goals.” “Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function.”

The first idea has “beauty pageants” left over and the second idea has “serves an important function” left over.

“Beauty pageants help women pursue their goals.” “Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function.”

Putting these ideas together, we get

“beauty pageants serve an important social function.” Because this idea follows so naturally, I take it as the missing ultimate conclusion.

Linda: “I just love to watch beauty pageants! I feel really good about them. (S) They do so much to help women pursue their goals because (P) they offer scholarships and other financial awards. (P) Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function, in my book.” [(U) Beauty pageants serve an important social function.]

Now we can evaluate the argument. Stop and Think What do you think about this argument? Is it good or bad? I think that the the first premise is probably okay. Pageants do offer scholarships and other financial awards, and we can expect the argument’s audience to know this. But does the subconclusion follow? I’m not so sure.

Linda: “I just love to watch beauty pageants! I feel really good about them. (S) They do so much to help women pursue their goals (?) because (P) they offer scholarships and other financial awards. (P) Anything that helps women to pursue their goals serves an important social function, in my book.” [(U) Beauty pageants serve an important social function.]


89

What if beauty pageants do other things that prevent women from achieving their goals? If that’s the case, the net effect of beauty pageants is not one of promoting achievement. This seems to be Susan’s concern, so let’s take a look at her argument. Example 2 Susan’s argument goes like this:

Susan: “You must be crazy! Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. And anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.”

Stop and Think Try to analyze and evaluate this argument in your head. As usual, first identify the ultimate conclusion. Remember that the ultimate conclusion might not be explicitly stated. Then try to determine how many lines of reasoning there are. Focus on each line of reasoning, one at a time, and identify the important ideas contained in it. If you think that an idea is a premise, ask yourself whether or not it’s true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. If you think that an idea is a subconclusion, ask yourself whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). If you think that an idea is the ultimate conclusion, ask yourself whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). And now that we know about missing subconclusions, you can fill them in as you go along. I think that Susan’s ultimate conclusion is the idea that beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view, her second sentence. The first sentence strikes me as an argumentatively unimportant instance of emoting.

Susan: “You must be crazy! (U) Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. And anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.”


90

The next two ideas, however, do seem important. In fact, they look like premises in this argument, and something follows from them. Stop and Think What idea follows from the next two sentences?

Susan: “You must be crazy! (U) Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. (P) They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. (P) Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. And anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.”

From these two premises, we can get the missing subconclusion “beauty pageants contribute to the oppression of women.” (If you have trouble seeing that, use the Puzzle Piece Method again. “They [beauty pageants] encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance.”plus“Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women” gives us “Beauty pageants contribute to the oppression of women.”)

Susan: “You must be crazy! (U) Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. (P) They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. (P) Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. [(S) Beauty pageants contribute to the oppression of women.] And anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.”

The claim that anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong certainly seems to be an important part of the argument, another premise.

Susan: “You must be crazy! (U) Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. (P) They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. (P) Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. [(S) Beauty pageants contribute to the oppression of women.] And (P) anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.”

And from this premise and the missing subconclusion we get “beauty pageants are morally wrong.” (If you have trouble seeing that, use the Puzzle Piece Method again: “Beauty pageants contribute to the oppression of women” plus “Anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong” gives us “Beauty pageants are morally wrong.”)


91

Since that’s essentially the ultimate conclusion, it looks like the ultimate conclusion does, indeed follow from those premises. Now that we understand how the argument works, we can assess it. Stop and Think What do you think about this argument? Is it good or bad? As we were able to see when we supplied the missing subconclusions, both inferences in this argument are fine. But what about the premises?

Susan: “You must be crazy! (U) Beauty pageants are totally unacceptable from an ethical point of view. (P) They encourage the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance. (P) Anything that encourages the practice of evaluating women on the basis of their appearance contributes to the oppression of women. [(S) Beauty pageants contribute to the oppression of women.] And (P) anything that contributes to the oppression of women is morally wrong.”

I could imagine someone objecting to the first premise by saying that beauty pageants don’t encourage us to evaluate women on the basis of their appearance on a day to day basis but only in the special circumstances of beauty pageants. Stop and Think Do you agree? Why or why not? I could also imagine someone objecting to the second premise by saying that evaluating women on the basis of their appearance does not necessarily contribute to the oppression of women. Stop and Think Again, do you agree? Why or why not? The third premise, I think, is fine. If something contributes to the oppression of women, it’s morally wrong. Let’s see how Linda responds to Susan’s argument. Example 3 Linda’s second argument runs as follows:


92

Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you?”

Stop and Think Try to analyze and evaluate this argument in your head. As usual, first identify the ultimate conclusion. Remember that the ultimate conclusion might not be explicitly stated. Then try to determine how many lines of reasoning there are. Focus on each line of reasoning, one at a time, and identify the important ideas contained in it. If you think that an idea is a premise, ask yourself whether or not it’s true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. If you think that an idea is a subconclusion, ask yourself whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). If you think that an idea is the ultimate conclusion, ask yourself whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). And now that we know about missing subconclusions, you can fill them in as you go along. I think that the ultimate conclusion to Linda’s argument is an unstated answer to the question with which she begins: specifically, the claim that there’s nothing wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance.

Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? [(U) There’s nothing wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance.] Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you?”

The next sentence needs to be divided into two ideas around the word “so,” which shows that the second of these ideas is a subconclusion following from the first. Because I don’t see any reason being given to believe that intelligence, like appearance, is a matter of genetics, I’ll take the first of these ideas as a premise.


93

Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? [(U) There’s nothing wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance.] (P) Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so (S) if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you?”

The next two sentences also convey important ideas, it seems to me. (The last sentence is a statement question conveying the idea that there’s nothing morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships.) And once again, I think they’re premises.

Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? [(U) There’s nothing wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance.] (P) Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so (S) if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And (P) if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. (P) You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you? [or there’s nothing morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships]”

Looking at these last two ideas, I see that something follows from them. Stop and Think What idea follows from the next two sentences? We can put the last two premise together to get “It’s not wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence.” (If you have trouble seeing that, think about the argument forms. “If it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships,” is “If P then Q.” “You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you? [or there’s nothing morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships] is “not Q.” And this gives us “not P,” which is “It’s not wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence.” Argument forms can be very handy!)

Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? [(U) There’s nothing wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance.] (P) Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so (S) if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And (P) if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally


94

corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. (P) You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you? [or there’s nothing morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships.] [(S) It’s not wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence.]”

When we add that idea to the first subconclusion, we get “It’s okay to judge people on the basis of their appearance.” (If you have trouble seeing that, think in terms of argument forms. “If it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too,” is “If P then Q.” “It’s not wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence,” is basically P. Putting these ideas together would give us Q, which is “it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance.” Once again we see that argument forms can be very useful.) Since “It’s okay to judge people on the basis of their appearance” is pretty much the ultimate conclusion, I see that the ultimate conclusion does, indeed, follow from the subconclusion and the last two premises combined. Now that we understand how the argument goes, we can evaluate it. Stop and Think What do you think about this argument? Is it good or bad?

Linda: “What’s wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance? [(U) There’s nothing wrong with evaluating people on the basis of their appearance.] (P) Intelligence, like appearance, is largely a matter of genetic endowment, so (S) if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too. And (P) if it’s wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence then there’s something morally corrupt about things like merit-based scholarships. (P) You don’t really think that there’s anything morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships, do you? [or there’s nothing morally corrupt about merit-based scholarships.] [(S) It’s not wrong to judge people on the basis of their intelligence.]”

The first premise, I suppose, is a matter for the geneticists to decide. Maybe intelligence is largely matter of genetic endowment; maybe not. Does the subconclusion follow from that premise? If intelligence is largely a matter of genetic endowment, does it follow that if it’s okay to judge people on the basis of intelligence then it’s okay to judge people on the basis of appearance, too? I’m not so sure. That inference presupposes that the propriety of judging someone on the basis of a certain trait is solely a function of whether or not that trait is genetically determined. If you think that other things are relevant to deciding whether a certain trait


95

is praise-or-blame-worthy then you’ll believe the premise but not the subconclusion. And since I can imagine Bob thinking this, it seems to me that the inference isn’t as strong as it could be. Summary Here, we’ve seen how we can expand our ability to mentally analyze and evaluate arguments to include arguments with inferences that require us to add together more than two ideas at a time. First, we identify the ultimate conclusion, recognizing that the ultimate conclusion might be unstated. Then we try to determine how many lines of reasoning there are. We focus on each line of reasoning, one at a time, and identify the important ideas contained in it. If we think that an idea is a premise, we ask ourselves whether or not it’s true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. If we think that an idea is a subconclusion, we ask ourselves whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether or not the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). If we think that an idea is the ultimate conclusion, we ask ourselves whether or not it’s well supported (e.g. whether the reasons and inferences supporting it are strong). And now that we know about missing subconclusions, we can fill them to help us trace and evaluate the reasoning. Naturally, you can always diagram an argument on paper if the argument is particularly difficult or important. It’s good to remember, though, that the skills you’ve learned are at their most practical when they’re internalized and applied in your head.

Constructing Arguments Now that we’ve learned how to find missing subconclusions and missing ultimate conclusions, we can apply this to the construction of our own arguments by allowing some of our own conclusions to remain unstated. The decision to remain silent about one or more of our conclusions concerns how we want to write or otherwise communicate our argument and can take place only after we’re aware of what our conclusions actually are. Accordingly, we should think about allowing some of our conclusions to remain unstated only after we have the diagram of our argument in hand. That said, the decision to omit subconclusions and the decision to omit the ultimate conclusion are responsive to slightly different considerations, so let’s think about them separately. Leaving Subconclusions Unstated The decision to allow a subconclusion to remain unstated is motivated by two factors. The first factor is observing that the subconclusion so obvious, given the reasons from which it comes, that explicitly pointing it out risks insulting the intelligence of the reader.


96

Although we certainly do want to write our arguments in a way that makes them easy for our readers to diagram, we don’t want to give our readers the impression that we think they need to be led by the hand all the way through. So how can you distinguish between appropriately sophisticated writing and inappropriately complex writing? A good rule of thumb, I think, is to ask yourself “Exactly whom am I trying to prove smart, here?” If you’re trying to prove that you are smart, by using unnecessarily obscure words or needlessly complex sentence structure, then the writing is probably inappropriately complex. If you’re trying to prove that your reader is smart, by allowing her to draw the most obvious inferences for herself, then your writing is probably appropriately sophisticated. The second factor influencing our decision to allow a subconclusion to remain unstated is noting that the inference that uses the two “parent reasons” instead of the subconclusion is not much harder to follow than the inference that uses the missing subconclusion. In that case, too, we can rely upon the intelligence of our readers to comprehend the slightly more complicated inference. For example, let’s take a look at the diagram of the argument we constructed in Chapter 4. Would you leave any of these subconclusions unstated?

1. We shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible. 2. Some virtues require a level of interdependence. 3. Gratitude and forgiveness require interdependence. 4. Gratitude and forgiveness are virtues. 5. We shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue. 6. We’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. 7. Virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring. 8. The absence of virtues won’t attract friends, or the happiness that comes with having friends. 9. Chimpanzees are social creatures. 10. Chimpanzees are our closest non-human relatives. 11. Human beings are naturally social. 12. Maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature. 13. It would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as possible.

7 + 8 9 + 10 D E

3 + 4 6 11 + 12 A C F

2 + 5 13 B G 1


97

Let’s look at subconclusion 2. If someone believed 3 (“Gratitude and forgiveness require interdependence”) and 4 (“Gratitude and forgiveness are virtues”), would she move to 2 (“Some virtues require a level of interdependence”) almost unconsciously? I think so, so 2 is sufficiently easy to infer to, even if it isn’t stated. Now, would the inference that follows 2 be easy enough to grasp if 2 weren’t there? If we didn’t state 2, our reader would be forced to add 3, 4 and 5 together to get 1. Given the ideas “Gratitude and forgiveness require interdependence,” “Gratitude and forgiveness are virtues,” and “We shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue,” our reader is supposed to conclude “We shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible.” Is this asking too much? I don’t think so. It probably would be easier for our reader to conclude this if we explicitly included 2, but it I don’t think that this leap is too wide, so I’ll give myself permission to leave 2 unstated if I want to. To remind myself of this, I’ll replace the number “2” with a lower-case letter to remind myself that I won’t actually include this idea when I write up the passage.

1. We shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible. a. Some virtues require a level of interdependence. 3. Gratitude and forgiveness require interdependence. 4. Gratitude and forgiveness are virtues. 5. We shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue. 6. We’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. 7. Virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring. 8. The absence of virtues won’t attract friends, or the happiness that comes with having friends. 9. Chimpanzees are social creatures. 10. Chimpanzees are our closest non-human relatives. 11. Human beings are naturally social. 12. Maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature. 13. It would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as possible.

7 + 8 9 + 10 D E

3 + 4 6 11 + 12 A C F

a + 5 13 B G 1


98

Now what about subconclusion 6? Is idea 6 (“We’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t”) obvious, given ideas 7 (“Virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring”) and 8 (“The absence of virtues won’t attract friends, or the happiness that comes with having friends”)? Maybe, and so it might be easy enough to go from 7 and 8 to 6. But is the inference that concludes idea 5 from 6’s “parent reasons” 7 and 8 virtually as easy to follow as the inference that concludes 5 from 6 itself? Compare “Virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring, and the absence of virtues won’t attract friends, or the happiness that comes with having friends. Therefore we shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue,” (which takes from ideas 7 and 8 to idea 5) and “We’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. Therefore we shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue,” (which takes us from idea 6 to idea 5). Is the former as easy to understand as the latter? Not to me. I prefer the second, so think that an explicit statement of 6 will help to bring my reader to 5, I’m going to leave it in. We have two more subconclusions to examine: 11 and 13. I think I’ll leave 11 (“Human beings are naturally social”) in my argument because I wouldn’t expect my reader to instantly conclude it from ideas 9 (“Chimpanzees are social creatures”) and 10 (“Chimpanzees are our closest non-human relatives”). And I’ll allow subconclusion 13 to remain for the same reason: although 13 (“It would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as possible”) follows nicely from 11(“Human beings are naturally social”) and 12 (“Maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature”), it’s not the sort of semi-automatic inference that I want to see before I leave a subconclusion unstated. Leaving the Ultimate Conclusion Unstated So much for deciding that we’ll have some missing subconclusions in our argument. When, and under what conditions, should we allow our ultimate conclusion to go unstated? Once again, there are two circumstances that press toward not stating the ultimate conclusion of our argument. The first is the same as the first condition for allowing a subconclusion to go unstated: we simply think that the ultimate conclusion is too obvious to mention, given its supporting reasons. The second condition is more subtle, in some respects “sneakier.” It rests upon the fact that encouraging the reader to draw the ultimate conclusion for herself has significant psychological force. If we draw a conclusion for the reader, by explicitly stating it, then she might be inclined to question that conclusion, even if she follows our reasoning. She might think “Sure. They think that this conclusion follows from those reasons, but they might be making a mistake somewhere.” But if we tell our reader just enough for her to draw the conclusion on her own, she might be less likely to resist it. The ultimate


99

conclusion will be the fruit of her own reasoning, not just the fruit of ours, and that might bestow upon it credibility for her which it might not otherwise possess. Sometimes, then, we’ll want to leave our ultimate conclusion unstated because it’s more persuasive to do so. So, what about the ultimate conclusion the argument we’re working on? Is our ultimate conclusion (“We shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible”) rather obvious, given the ideas in each line of reasoning? It looks like it to me. And do we have something to gain, from a purely rhetorical and psychological point of view, by leaving this ultimate conclusion unsaid? I think so. The opinion that we should all try to be as tough and self-sufficient as possible is terrifically entrenched and so if we’re going to argue against it, we would be well-advised to avail ourselves of every ethical trick in the book. It’s completely ethical to encourage our reader to draw our conclusion for herself, and so I’m going to do that. Once again, I’ll remind myself of this intention by giving the ultimate conclusion a letter instead of a number.

b. We shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible. a. Some virtues require a level of interdependence. 3. Gratitude and forgiveness require interdependence. 4. Gratitude and forgiveness are virtues. 5. We shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue. 6. We’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. 7. Virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring. 8. The absence of virtues won’t attract friends, or the happiness that comes with having friends. 9. Chimpanzees are social creatures. 10. Chimpanzees are our closest non-human relatives. 11. Human beings are naturally social. 12. Maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature. 13. It would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as possible.

7 + 8 9 + 10 D E

3 + 4 6 11 + 12 A C F

a + 5 13 B G b

Once we’ve noted which of our conclusions we may safely leave unstated, we simply write up the argument in a way that leaves them out.


100

For instance, I’ll reproduce our original expression of the argument we’ve been considering, taken from Chapter 4, and cross out the ideas we’ve decided to omit, along with the relevant inference indicator expressions.

“A popular conception of human nature maintains that an ideal person is as independent as possible. This ‘autonomy-model’ of perfection is especially popular in the United States, where it supports the norms of rugged-individualism and self-reliance that allegedly made this country great. But we should think about it critically. Some virtues require a level of interdependence. After all, gratitude and forgiveness are require interdependence and they are virtues. Furthermore, because virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring, whereas the absence of virtues won’t attract friends or the corresponding happiness, it follows that we’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. But this just means that we shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue, and since, as we’ve already shown, some virtues require a level of interdependence, we shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible. There’s another way to see this, too. Who can deny that human beings are naturally social? Chimpanzees are social creatures and they are our closest non-human relatives. Clearly, though, maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature and so it would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as we can.” b. We shouldn’t aspire to be as independent and autonomous as possible. a. Some virtues require a level of interdependence. 3. Gratitude and forgiveness require interdependence. 4. Gratitude and forgiveness are virtues. 5. We shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue. 6. We’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. 7. Virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring. 8. The absence of virtues won’t attract friends, or the happiness that comes with having friends. 9. Chimpanzees are social creatures. 10. Chimpanzees are our closest non-human relatives. 11. Human beings are naturally social. 12. Maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature. 13. It would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as possible.


101

7 + 8 9 + 10 D E

3 + 4 6 11 + 12 A C F

a + 5 13 B G b

Of course, cutting certain sentences from a passage can easily result in a passage that sounds very strange, so we’ll need to read over the passage without those sentences and make further revisions. Here’s what I end up with when I do this.

“A popular conception of human nature maintains that an ideal person is as independent as possible. This ‘autonomy-model’ of perfection is especially popular in the United States, where it supports the norms of rugged-individualism and self-reliance that allegedly made this country great. But we should think about it critically. Since virtues will attract friends to us, along with the happiness that friends bring, whereas the absence of virtues won’t attract friends or the corresponding happiness, we’ll be happier if we attain virtues than if we don’t. It follows from this that we shouldn’t aspire to anything that interferes with our attainment of virtue. But at least two virtues, gratitude and forgiveness, require interdependence. Besides who can deny that human beings are naturally social? Chimpanzees are social creatures and they are our closest non-human relatives. Clearly, though, maximum independence and autonomy would inhibit our social nature and so it would be unnatural for us to be as independent and autonomous as we can.”

Although this passage may make our readers work a little harder than the passage that we composed in Chapter 4, it assumes that our readers are capable of working a little harder. It pays them the complement of high expectations, and sometimes that more than justifies the extra difficulty. Summary In this chapter, we learned that we shouldn’t think about leaving some of our conclusions unstated until we have

a completed diagram of our argument. that we may leave a subconclusion unstated if it’s obvious, given the reasons from

which it follows, and if the inference that uses the two “parent reasons” instead of the subconclusion is not much harder to follow than the inference that uses the missing subconclusion.


102

that we may leave an ultimate conclusion unstated if it’s obvious, given the reasons from which it follows, and if it’s more persuasive to do so.

Congratulations! You are now in possession of a complete set of reasoning tools! This means that you’re prepared to recognize, analyze, evaluate and construct any argument, however complex! Obviously, some arguments will be harder than others, but you’ll never need a skill that you don’t already have. Take a moment to review the handbook for this chapter and then practice the skills and concepts covered here by working through some of the exercises, questions, and activities. In the Chapter 6, we’ll see how to apply the skills you’ve learned to real-life arguments.

chapter 5 – arguments with missing conclusions … · critical thinking, chapter 5 – arguments...

Documents