Chapter 6 Journal Entry

Chapter6.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Chapter 6 Journal Entry

Critical Thinking 63

In general, it is fairly rare that someone will become confused as to whether a particular passage is an argument or an explanation. Most people are fairly good at recognizing when an attempt to persuade is being made. The fundamental question to ask is whether the force of the language is to convince one to accept a particular position or to explain why something that is already accepted is the case.

The principle of charity

A further word on interpretation involves what philosophers call the principle of charity, according to which one is in some sense obligated to offer the strong- est possible interpretation of an opposing argument. This may seem somewhat counterintuitive. Why, after all, should one try to make an opponent’s position stronger? There are several compelling reasons for doing just that. The first of these is simply to save time. Suppose that an opponent offers an objection to a weak interpretation of an argument. In response to such an objection, a defender of the position can simply reformulate the argument in a stronger way. If, how- ever, an opponent interprets the argument in the strongest possible form from the outset, such an option is not available to the defender, who must then offer a more substantive defence of the position. A second reason to do this is to reduce the chances of committing a straw man fallacy (see 4.2).

The best reason for operating under a principle of charity, however, is to maximize the force of an objection. Consider how in competitive sports a vic- tory can be soured by the fact that the defeated team had some of their best play- ers out of the match with injuries. It can always be said that the winning team won only because the defeated team was playing at a disadvantage. The ideal scenario is to defeat opponents when they are at their strongest. In a similar way, if an opponent interprets the argument in the best possible light (perhaps in an even stronger form than the proponent originally stated it!) and grants as many of the premises as possible, a devastating objection is all the more damaging.

5.2 Evaluating Complex Arguments

In the real world, arguments are often embedded in speeches or essays that may or may not be clearly worded. Crucial premises or even the conclusion may be

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

Al l ri gh ts r es er ve d. M ay n ot b e re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

EBSCO : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/12/2018 8:18 PM via FAYETTEVILLE TECH COMM CLG AN: 373337 ; Crews-Anderson, Timothy A..; Critical Thinking and Informal Logic Account: s5824366.main.eds

Critical Thinking 64

tacitly implied and never explicitly stated. An argument that contains one or more unstated propositions is called an enthymeme, and any unstated proposi- tion is called an enthymematic proposition. It is quite common for arguments to contain an enthymematic conclusion or unstated premises. Additionally, the bulk of the piece may be support for the premises in the main argument and so not directly relevant to its conclusion. The argument that is presented may not express a sound or cogent inference. Indeed, its proponent’s intent may be to deceive or coerce rather than to offer a compelling argument. All of these factors along with the other vagaries of human discourse serve to make interpretation a difficult and challenging endeavour. It is, however, a necessary skill for critical thought. What follows is a step-by-step guide for evaluating complex argumen- tative pieces.

Identifying the issue or question at hand

Incontrovertibly, the first step in evaluating a complex argument is to identify the issue or question at hand. Assuming that the argument is part of a written essay, the best way to do this is to give the piece a thorough and careful initial reading. At this point, one should refrain from any attempt to interpret or ana- lyze the argument that might be contained, opting instead for a solid synoptic grasp of the scope and subject matter of the piece. It is important at this point to give the author the benefit of the doubt on controversial claims. Remember that the point here is merely to figure out what precisely she is trying to say, so it is important to take the piece at face value. This acceptance should, of course, be provisional. Final acceptance should be kept separate from this interpretive exercise in order to avoid being deceived by bad reasoning. Any final judgment should be withheld until a thorough analysis as been made.

After this first reading, one should carefully consider the direction that the piece has taken. Towards what position or goal is the argument targeted? What thoughts or opinions are left in the mind? What does the author want the reader to believe? Ideally, the author will explicitly state her position. If so, the ques- tion with respect to which she has taken a position is the de facto issue at hand. Of course, it is entirely possible that the argumentation that she offers does not actually support this particular claim. If the force of the reasons that are offered

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

Critical Thinking 6�

seem to lead somewhere besides this explicitly stated conclusion, there is quite possibly a serious problem with the argument. There is also the possibility that the author has not explicitly stated her stand on the issue that is discussed in the piece. If this is the case, then it is probably safe to say that the issue at hand is the target of the reasoning that the language of the piece expresses. The context in which the piece is being presented should also be considered. For example, if the author is attempting to refute an argument in another article or essay, then the subject matter of the original piece is the issue at hand. In such cases, it is very important to be on guard against subtle re-interpretations of the opposing position. Correctly identifying the issue at hand requires a holistic grasp of the content, scope and context of a piece, and there is no simple method to accomplish this task. Its importance cannot be overstated because it is a crucial step to recogniz- ing the conclusion of the main argument. Any evaluative analysis will rely on how well the premises of this main argument support its conclusion, so failure to identify properly the issue at hand will make a critical evaluation impossible.

Recognizing arguments and their elements: premise and conclusion indicators

Recognizing that an argument is being made is not usually difficult. The best clue is the context in which language is being used. If a person is attempting to persuade others to adopt a particular position or to accept a particular claim by offering reasons, then she is very likely making an argument. What can be some- what more difficult is the correct identification of the elements of an argument. The second step in evaluating a complex argument is to identify the conclu- sion of the author’s main argument. This step and those that follow will require multiple close readings of the piece. The conclusion of the main argument should be the position that the author takes with respect to the issue at hand, thus while the issue at hand is the subject about which she has written or the question that she has set out to answer, her conclusion is the stand she takes on this issue or the answer that she offers. For the sake of simplicity in the analysis process, the conclusion should be formulated as one proposition. This proposition may, of course, be a complex proposition (conjunctive, disjunctive or hypothetical), and the argumentative burden will change accordingly.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

Critical Thinking 66

Identification of the conclusion of the main argument requires a clear grasp of the intent and reasoning process of the author, so there is no way to accom- plish this task without careful reading and consideration. There are a number of phrases and words that often indicate that a conclusion is about to be stated.

So Therefore Thus Hence It can be inferred that From these facts, it can be concluded that This implies that This entails that It follows that

Obviously this list is not exhaustive, and the purpose of giving it is to show what kinds of language may used to state the conclusion. Keep in mind that in a com- plex argumentative passage, it is very likely that the author will provide support for the premises of her main argument. This support will necessarily come in the form of an argument, so the presence of conclusion-indicating language does not necessarily point to the main conclusion. The only reliable way to make this identification is to come to an understanding of the author’s reasoning process. Before moving to the premises, it is a good idea to take a close look at the conclusion and to consider what kind of evidence would be required to show that it is true. Does it make a statistical claim? If so, then one should anticipate a statistical generalization. If it is a conjunctive proposition, then there should be support for each of the individual propositions that constitute it. A hypothetical proposition will require evidence of the existence of some sort of relationship between its antecedent and its consequent. A working idea of the burden of proof that the author will have to meet in order to establish the conclusion will allow a critical reader to anticipate the sort of argument and supporting evidence that should be presented. This will aid in the recognition of the main premises as well as in the evaluation of the overall argument. The third step in evaluating a complex argument is to identify the premises of the author’s main argument. This is likely to be the most difficult part of the process as these premises may be enthymematic or presented in a haphazard way. They may be mixed in with claims that are meant to offer them support, C

op yr ig ht @ 2 00 7. H um an it ie s- Eb oo ks .

Critical Thinking 67

so there may actually be a large number of propositions in a passage, not all of which are premises of the main argument. The important thing to remember is to look for those propositions that offer direct support to the conclusion. This reveals why it is necessary to identify the conclusion of the main argument first. It is impossible to identify those propositions that offer direct support for the conclusion if one does not know that the conclusion is. There are many phrases and words that provide clues to the presence of a premise.

Because For Since As From the fact that For the following reason This follows from It may be implied from the fact that

Again, this list is not exhaustive, and the presence of this kind of language indi- cates only that a reason for believing some claim is being given. It does not reveal whether the claim for which support is being offered is the conclusion of the main argument. Much of the challenge of formulating a correct interpreta- tion arises when one attempts to identify the elements of the main argument and to separate them from the support that is being offered to the premises of the main argument.

The analysis of the main argument

Once the constitutive propositions of the main argument have been identified, one may move to the fourth step in evaluating a complex argument, which is an analysis of the form of the main argument. At this point, one should assume that the premises are true. The reason for this is that a determination of the actual truth of the premise is often very time-consuming, and if the form of the argu- ment has serious problems (deductive invalidity, inductive weakness, or falla- cious reasoning) then it won’t be necessary to carry out such a determination.

The first question is whether the argument is deductive or inductive? An answer to this will again require consideration of the intent of the author. Is she claiming to have proven her conclusion with deductive certainty? If so, is the Cop

yr ig ht @ 2 00 7. H um an it ie s- Eb oo ks .

Critical Thinking 68

argument valid? Is she claiming only to show inductively that the conclusion is likely to be true? If this is the case, is the argument a strong one? Note that if an argument that has been interpreted as deductive turns out to be invalid, the principle of charity will likely require the reader to reconsider the argument with the assumption that it is inductive. An invalid deductive inference may very well be interpreted as a strong inductive one. Note that if an argument expresses an inference that is exceedingly weak, then one need go no further in this proce- dure. Even if the premises are actually true, they do not provide compelling sup- port for the conclusion, so consideration of their truth is a waste of time.

A further concern at this point is to consider whether the terms of the argu- ment are being used consistently wherever they appear. Does a word or phrase mean the same thing in one part of the argument as it does in another? If not, then there is good possibly that a fallacy of equivocation has occurred. Also consider whether the propositions that constitute the argument have multiple reasonable interpretations. Is the language loose or awkward? Is the emphasis in the sentence in the appropriate place? Has a fallacy of amphiboly or accent been committed?

In addition to attending to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion in the main argument, it is also important to examine the relationship between the main argument and the issue at hand. It is possible that the conclu- sion of the main argument is subtly different from the position that the author has ostensibly taken with respect to the issue at hand, or the premises may actu- ally support a proposition that is subtly different from the stated conclusion. It is especially important to keep these possibilities in mind when the main argument is an enthymeme. If an argument is to be compelling, the premises must offer support for the conclusion, and the conclusion must be relevant to the issue at hand.

Support for the premises

Once the validity or cogency of the main argument and its relevance to the issue at hand have been established, attention may be turned to the actual truth of the premises. Chances are that the bulk of the essay will be evidence for these prop- ositions. In practice, this support will come in the form of subsidiary arguments,

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

Critical Thinking 69

which, for simplicity, will be termed sub-arguments. Critical evaluation of these sub-arguments should follow the same steps as the evaluation of the main one. First, identify the conclusion of the sub-argument, which is, of course, a premise of the main argument. Consider the sort of evidence that would be required to show this proposition to be true, and identify the premises of the sub-argument. Once satisfied that these premises are indeed relevant to the conclusion of the sub-argument, consider its validity or cogency. This process should be repeated for each premise for which the author lends support. It is always possible that she will not offer any support for one or more premises. This need not be a prob- lem if these propositions are uncontroversial or a matter of common knowledge. But if they are not, if they need support that is lacking, this is a problem for the argument. In more complex pieces, another level of argumentation may be offered as evidence for the premises of the sub-arguments. Since this could obviously go on forever, any argument must eventually rest on propositions for which no sup- port is offered. These will usually be grounded in an appeal to authority, empiri- cal data, common sense, definitions or some combination of these. It is impor- tant to keep in mind that none of these should be taken completely at face value. Appeals to authority can be inappropriate, empirical data can be misleading, common sense can be wrong, and definitions can be incorrect or misapplied.

The final evaluation

Once the sub-arguments have been properly interpreted and analysed, a final evaluation may be made of the main argument. The purpose of this is to make a determination of how compelling the complete argument is when all things are considered. Is the inference valid or at least cogent? Are there good reasons for accepting the truth of the premises? Are they as well-supported as they could be? All told does the argument offer a compelling case for the acceptance of its conclusion? As should be clear, this process can require a lot of time and effort, so it should be easy to understand why it is always a good idea to evaluate the inference that is expressed by the main argument before considering the truth of the premises.

A summary of this step-by-step process is as follows.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

Critical Thinking 70

�. Identify the issue at hand. 2. Identify the conclusion of the main argument 2. Consider the burden of proof of the conclusion of the main argument. 3. Identify the premises of the main argument. 4. Conduct an evaluative analysis of the inference expressed in the main argument and the

relevance of the main argument to the issue at hand. 5. Repeat steps � through 5 for each of the subsidiary arguments that lend support to the

main premises. 6. Make a final evaluation

Paraphrasing and diagramming

Paraphrasing and diagramming are helpful tactics for successfully navigating the above steps. In the course of identifying the constitutive elements of the main argument and sub-arguments, it is very useful to reformulate the proposi- tions in clear and concise language on a note page. This is paraphrasing, and in addition to making the argument less cumbersome, it may facilitate the discov- ery of equivocation, amphiboly or accent fallacies. It is of fundamental impor- tance when paraphrasing an argument to maintain in the interpretation all of the nuance and meaning of the original language. If an analysis is conducted on an inaccurate formulation of an argument, then the argument in question has not been analyzed! Once an argument has been precisely and accurately interpreted and para- phrased, it is also helpful to map graphically the inferences that the argument expresses. This is especially useful when evaluating large and complex argu- ments because it will make it easier to follow the author’s reasoning process and will also aid in identifying propositions that lack support. A suggested procedure for diagramming a complex argument is to label the premises of the main argu- ment P1, P2,…PN and its conclusion C. The premises of the sub-argument for a main premise (P1) can then be designated with subscripted letters P1a, P1b, and so on. Once the propositions are so denoted, simply draw the inferential rela- tionships between them in a way that indicates whether they are deductive or inductive.

Given a deductive main argument with two premises, a good way to indicate this would look like this.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

Critical Thinking 7�

Given an inductive main argument, use the following.

Given these basic graphical tools, it is fairly easy to diagram even complex arguments.

For those who prefer to avoid pencil and paper, there are argument-mapping software packages available online. A good program is available for download from Austhink (click to go the site).

Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s.

http://www.austhink.com/rationale