Argument

The Anatomy of an Argument

Arguments are a made up of premise and a conclusion.

 A premise/ predicate/ statement is the supporting statement that is giving details of the
conclusion.
 A statement is what you produce when you perform the linguistic act of stating or asserting
something.
 A conclusion is the final evaluation made from the synthesisation of processing (a)
premise(s)/ predicate(s)

Argument Markers are words used to indicate there is an argument presented. There are two types
of argument markers which are conclusion markers and reason markers.

 Conclusion markers give indication that there is a conclusion approaching immediately after
the word. e.g. Therefore, In Conclusion, So, Hence
 Reason Markers give indication that there is a succession of statement(s). e.g. Since,
Because, For, As
 There can be instances that argument markers can be used to explain an event. This
therefore makes the sentence no longer an argument as there is no cause. Be wary that
explanations always go from cause to effect whilst arguments can go from effect to cause but
not always. It is important to note that an explanation tells us why something happened
whereas an argument gives us reasons to believe that something happened.
o The roads are wet because it rained last night > Explanation.
o It rained last night because the roads are wet > Argument.

Standard Form
Arguments can be written in its Standard Form.

 Standard form is when the premises are listed and numbered. Then, a line is drawn below
the premises and followed by a conclusion which is numbered and the premises from which
the conclusion is supposed to be derived are indicated in parentheses. Example is as follows:

(1) Premise 1

(2) Premise 2

∴ (3) Conclusion (1-2)

Analysing arguments has three steps:

1. Identify the conclusion.

2. Identify the premises.
3. Identify the structure, I.e., how the premises lead to the conclusion

Analysing Arguments
We use argument diagrams/ maps to break down an argument
 1. Premises and conclusions appear in boxes. They contain statements (declarative sentences).
2. Arrows represent ‘therefore’.
3. We always work backwards from the conclusion to figure out its premises and the structure
that the premises take to form the conclusion.
4. Evaluate the strengths of the argument.

Complex arguments are arguments with sub-arguments within them. They can form chains of
reasoning. Intermediate conclusions are ones that are conclusions to sub-arguments and are also
known as lemmas.

Suppressed Premise
Enthymemes are arguments that have hidden premises/ suppressed premises. This means that the
premise is not explicitly stated within the argument and that the reader must provide the premise
when trying to make an understanding of the argument for the argument to sustain its truth.

The Anatomy of a Conditional

Conditionals begin with “If” and followed by “then” and are contain an antecedent and consequent.
Conditionals are not arguments but provide patterns that can be converted into an argument when
their antecedent is true.

 Antecedent refers to the words between the “if” and “then”.

 Consequent refers to the words after the “then”.

There is a specific type of conditional known as an Indicative Conditional.

 Indicative conditional refers to

 Subjunctive
 Counterfactual

Validity, Truth and Soundness in an Argument

Validity in an argument is if and only if it is not possible for all the premises of the argument to be
true and its conclusion false. Validity is the internal consistency of the argument. That is, the
conclusion reached is consistent and reasonable with the information used to reach that conclusion.
It can be thought that the conclusion is contained within its premises.

Truth in an argument means that all its premises must be true. It is the complete accuracy of what
was, is, or will be, error-proof, beyond doubt, dispute or debate, a final test of right or wrong of
people’s ideas and beliefs.

Soundness refers to when an argument is both valid and true. In other words, this is when the
premises are true, and the conclusion is the resultant of a valid argument.

All Premises TRUE At least one FALSE premise

Valid Sound Unsound
Invalid Unsound Unsound
Process of elimination is another form of argument that has one its premises stating all possibilities
and successively followed by the elimination of all possibilities but one. The remaining possibility is
concluded to be actual.

Deductive Argument
Deductive arguments are when the premises and conclusion work together to be valid. Essentially,
the premises guarantee that the conclusion is true. A deductive argument is considered to be valid if
and only if its premises rule out every possibility of the conclusion being false. We measure the
validity of deductive arguments. Adding more premises to a valid argument does not make the
argument invalid as within the definition of a valid argument which is ‘it is impossible for the
conclusion to be true if and only if the premises are assumed to be true.’

Syllogism is an argument with two premises and a conclusion.

Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent) refers to often resembles a syllogism but has one of its
premises as a conditional. The second premise is an assertion of the antecedent of the conditional.

1. If A, then B

2. A

3. ∴B

Modus Tolens (denying the consequent)

1. If A, then B

2. Not-B

3. ∴Not-A

BARBARA

1 All Fs are G

2. All Hs are F

3. ∴ All Hs are G

Inductive Argument
Inductive arguments have premises and conclusion such that the conclusion makes the best possible
case for reasoning. It is a type of ampliative argument. An inductive argument is considered to be
strong if and only if the premises rule out every serious possibility of its conclusion being false.
Inductive reasoning relies on background knowledge to rule out any non-serious possibility. It is
considered to not be topic-neutral, defeasible and non-monotonic. We measure the strength of
inductive arguments. Adding premises to an inductive argument may undercut the strength of an
inductive argument.

There are four types of deductive arguments.

 • Probabilistic reasoning

• Inductive Generalisation

• Reasoning by Analogy

• Inference to the Best Explanation (“Abduction”)

Inductive Generalisation

Note on terminology: some people use “induction” to mean just what I am calling “inductive
generalisation”.

Arguments that generalise or extrapolate from past experience.

“We tested substance X on 100 healthy volunteers and compared them to 100 controls. There were
no differences in health outcomes. So, substance X is safe.”

“We asked 500 Australians whether they prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. 50% said chocolate,
40% said vanilla, and 10% said they like them equally. Therefore, most Australians prefer chocolate
ice cream.”

Such arguments are not valid, but they can be strong.

Inductive Generalisations have the following forms:

All observed Xs have had feature F.

∴ All Xs have feature F.

A% of observed Xs has feature F.

B% of observed Xs has feature G.

∴ A% of all Xs has feature F, B% of all Xs has feature G…

The precise form does not matter. What matters is that we reason from an observed sample to a
generalisation about a population that includes unobserved items.

Sample size matters. The more experience you have to extrapolate from, the better! The
mathematical tools of statistics can help. But how to apply them will always depend on background
knowledge. There needs to also be a representative sample. A representative sample is a sample that
resembles the population in relevant respects, as much as possible.

Reasoning by Analogy
Such arguments often look like this:

1. Observed instances of X have feature F.

2. a is an (unobserved) instance of X.

∴ a has F.

Or they can look like this:

1. a resembles b.

2. b has F.

∴ a has F.

If I compare (unobserved) a to (observed) b because I want to draw conclusions about a, then my

conclusions will be any good only if b really is relevantly similar to a. Of course, to judge whether this
is so or not requires background knowledge, as well as careful judgement.

Inference to the Best Explanation (“abduction”)

In all of these examples we have:

1. Some observed evidence

2. A hypothesis that explains them

This hypothesis is our conclusion. Typically, other explanations are possible too. The reasoning is
good if the conclusion is the best explanation of the premises.

Abductive arguments are not in general valid (except in very rare cases where only one explanation is
possible). But they can be strong. When are they strong?

• The conclusion must explain the evidence.

• The conclusion must explain the evidence well.

• The conclusion must explain the evidence better than all other candidate explanations.

A hypothesis that explains everything does not really explain anything. Simpler explanations are to
be preferred (assuming they are as good otherwise). Simple explanations require the least arbitrary
assumptions. Roughly: If H is a good explanation of E, there must be some other conceivable set of
evidence that H cannot explain.

Balance of Reasons
Balance of reasons is when we make comparisons between arguments. There is agreement and
disagreement about a topic. Disagreements fester. We weigh the arguments of both sides of a topic.
Some arguments are weightier/ stronger than another.

The strongest form of an argument is a sound argument.

Good arguments require (i) true premises and (ii) the right sort of connections between the
premises. To show that argument is weak, we either show that the argument rests on a false premise
or that the connection between the premises and conclusion is false.

Counterexamples
Only universal statements can be

There are two kinds of universal statements: positive universal statement and negative universal
statement.

Positive Universal statements are in the form: All Fs are G.

Negative Universal Statements are in the form: No Fs are G.

Objections use counterexamples (an instance going against the generalisation) against universal
statements. They are valid arguments based on their form. If their premises are true, then they are
sound. A refutation is an argument that proves something is false.

Simplest Case: One Side’s Argument is Sound

This is as strong or weighty as an argument gets. If one side has a sound argument, then the game is
over. Good arguments require:

i. True premises and

ii. The right sort of connection between premises and conclusion

To show that an argument is bad, we need to show either that it rests on a false premise or that the
connection between premises and conclusion is weak. This is called an objection/ counterargument.
Counterexamples are important for refutations.

It is important to note that arguments that are guarded cannot be refuted with counterexamples.

Reductio ad absurdum
Latin for “reduction to the absurd”. It is a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that
its logical consequence is absurd of contradictory. Used to refute an argument by showing that a
proposition has absurd implications. A reductio ad absurdum argument tries to show that one claim,
X, is false because it implies another claim, Y, that is absurd. To evaluate such an argument, the
following questions should be asked:

1. Is Y really absurd?

2. Does X really imply Y?

3. Can X be modified in some minor way so that it no longer implies Y?

Fallacies
Breaks in logic within a piece of argumentation.
Propositional Logic

Conjunction (“and”)

Φ Ψ (Φ&Ψ)
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

Disjunction (“either… or…”)

Φ Ψ (Φ⋁𝜳)
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Negation (“it is not the case that”)

Φ (~Φ)
T F
F T

Truth Functional or “Material Conditional” (“If … then…”)

Φ Ψ (Φ⊃ 𝜳)
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Bi-Conditional (“if and only if”)

 Φ Ψ (Φ≡Ψ)
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

This is when the conditions are both necessary and sufficient to each other. (Φ⊃ 𝜳) & (𝜳 ⊃ Φ)

Consistent and Inconsistent Formulas

Consistent formulas are when a set of formulas are if and only if it is possible for all of them to be
true i.e. if and only if there is at least one row in their joint truth-table where they are all true. A set
of formulas is inconsistent if and only if it is impossible for all of them to be true together. i.e. if and
only if there is no row in their joint truth-table where they are all true.