I.

Recognizing Arguments

Abstract: Several kinds of non-argumentative discourse are characterized, illustrated, and

distinguished from argumentative discourse

Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something: At least
one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons; and there must be a claim
that the alleged evidence supports or implies something—that is, a claim that something
follows from the alleged evidence or reasons.

To be an argument, then, a passage must contain both a factual claim and an inferential
claim. The factual claim is expressed in the premises, and the inferential claim is the claim that
these sentences support or imply something further. The implication may be implicit or
explicit. In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence presented supports or implies
something; look for 1) premise and conclusion indicator words and 2) the presence of an
inferential relationship between the statements. Note, though, that the mere presence of an
indicator word is not a guarantee that it’s an argument. (Hurley, Section 1.2, taken from
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section1.2.htm on January 26, 2019)

Given these characterizations, then, how do we sort out arguments from the rest of the
kinds of linguistic behavior? In effect, what we are doing is separating the territory of logic
from the rest of the world. In order to know to what we can apply our powerful methods of
analysis, we need to learn how to separate argumentative discourse from non-argumentative
discourse. (taken from https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html on January 27 2019).

Most factual claims fall outside the domain of logic. So in this class, we’ll be focusing in
inferential claims. Inferential claims are either explicit or implicit. (taken from
https://prezi.com/sqqxhgtdpywe/recognizing-arguments/ on January 28, 2019)

A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators (Explicit Inference)

One useful method depends on the appearance of certain common indicators,

certain words or phrases that typically serve to signal the appearance of an argument’s
conclusion or of its premises. Here is a partial list of conclusion indicators:
 Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an argument and
hence are called premise indicators. Usually, but not always, what follows any one of
these will be the premise of some argument. Here is a partial list of premise indicators:

B. Arguments in Context (Implicit Inference)

The full force of argument and counterargument can be grasped, in most

circumstances, only with an understanding of the context in which those arguments are
presented. In real life, context is critical. For example, if you are told that I am bringing a
lobster home for dinner, you will have little doubt that I intend to eat it, not feed it.

No premise indicators or conclusion indicators are used here, yet the argument
is clear. Indicators are absent in the following argument in Sam Harris’s Letter to a
Christian Nation, whose premises and conclusions are unmistakable:
 Often, however, the force of an argument can be appreciated only when one
understands the context in which that argument is presented. For example, the
undergraduate admission system of the University of Michigan that gave a fixed number
of extra points to all members of certain minority groups was held unconstitutional by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Gratz v. Bollinger in 2003. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
dissented, defending the Michigan system with the following argument:

C. Premises or Conclusions Not in Declarative Form

On the surface they make no assertions; beneath the surface an interrogative

sentence can serve as a premise when its question is rhetorical—that is, when it
suggests or assumes an answer that is made to serve as the premise of an argument.
The sentence may be interrogative even though its meaning is declarative. This use of
questions is sometimes obvious, as in a letter dated 7 January2007 to The New York
Times, objecting to a new series of U.S. coins that will honor former presidential wives.
Irit R. Rasooly wrote:

D. Unstated Propositions

Arguments are sometimes obscure because one (or more) of their

constituent propositions is not stated but is assumed to be understood.

II. Arguments and Explanations

While an argument contains premises and a conclusion, explanations consist of an

explanan and an explanandum. The former is the group of statements that are doing the
explaining, and the latter is what is explained. (taken from
http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section1.2.htm on January 27, 2019)

How to distinguish arguments from explanations? (taken from

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nonarg.html on January 27, 2019)

1. By carefully reading the text, you can discern several important differences
between an argument and an explanation.

a. Do a group of statements give evidence, grounds, or reasons for some other

statement?

b. Is the purported conclusion better known than the purported premisses?

c. Is a causal connection asserted or implied?

d. What is the author's purpose in offering the passage?

e. What is the context of the passage?

2. In general, these questions point to the difference between arguments and

explanations. (Nevertheless, as shown below, arguments and explanations do, on
occasion, overlap.)
 3. Consider the following passage given in an edition of Copi's Introduction to Logic:

(1) The Roman Empire collapsed because (2) it lacked the spirit of liberalism and
free enterprise.

a. Which statement is better known (1) or (2)? Since the first statement is better
known, we would normally conclude that this is an explanation which shows a causal
connection rather than an argument with a logical implication. However, Copi has taken
this passage out of context as we will see below.

b. If the author were advancing the general thesis "All countries that lack these
attributes crumble to dust," therefore the Roman Empire did, then a Deductive
Nomological Explanation is being given. In point of fact, this is precisely the argument
which von Mises gives in the original passage from which this passage was excerpted:

"The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free
enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle,
decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy
any social entity."

(Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Auburn: Mises, 1949), 763.)

[All countries that lack the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise crumble to dust.] I.e.,
contraposition of the last sentence of the passage above.

The Roman Empire lacked the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise.

Therefore, the Roman Empire crumbled to dust.

c. The complete passage then is an example of the Deductive Nomological Method of

Explanation, a method of ordering science as a deductive system of information.

4. Some passages are a mixture of argument and explanation. Consider this example:

"There was therefore a sound reason why, despite theological differences, the political
theories of Calvinists in France or Scotland should have had certain similarities with those
of the Jesuits. Both were in a situation where it was necessary to urge that political
obligation is not absolute and that a right of rebellion exits against an heretical ruler. Both
depended upon a common heritage of medieval thought and argued that the community
itself creates is own officials and can regulate them for its own purposes. Both held,
therefore, that political power inheres in the people, is derived from him by contract, and
may be revoked if the king becomes a tyrant."

(George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, 3rd. ed. (London: Haarp, 1963), 388.)

The second and third statements are reasons for the conclusion expressed in the third
statement. The third statement is the explanans (that which is the explanation) for the first
statement which is the explanandum (that which is to be explained)..

Note: Explanations often are given for well-known states of affairs. In science, the
explanation is almost always less well known than that which is to be explained.

For example, the answer as to why rainbows form on gasoline-station driveways is

expressed in terms of layers of different densities of fluids with different optical properties.
The index of refraction, reflection, wavelengths of light, and the electromagnetic spectrum
are all mentioned in the explanans.

Hence, unlike arguments, the statements in an explanation generally "move" from well-
known to less well known statements.

III. Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Every argument makes the claim that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion; that claim is the mark of an argument. However, there are two very different
ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its premises, and thus there are two great
classes of arguments: the deductive and the inductive. Understanding this distinction is
essential in the study of logic. A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is
supported by its premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make
such a claim. Therefore, if we judge that in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is being
made, we treat the argument as deductive; if we judge that such a claim is not being made,
we treat it as inductive. Because every argument either makes this claim of conclusiveness
(explicitly or implicitly) or does not make it, every argument is either deductive or
inductive.

In contrast, the central task of inductive arguments is to ascertain the facts by which
conduct may be guided directly, or on which other arguments may be built. Empirical
investigations are undertaken—as in medicine, or social science, or astronomy—leading,
when inductive techniques are applied appropriately, to factual conclusions, most often
concerning cause-and-effect relationships of some importance

In sum, the distinction between induction and deduction rests on the nature of the
claims made by the two types of arguments about the relations between their premises and
their conclusions. Thus we characterize the two types of arguments as follows: A deductive
argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute
necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on
whatever else may be the case. In sharp contrast, an inductive argument is one whose
conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability, this probability
being a matter of degree and dependent on what else may be the case.