CHAPTER TWO:

BASIC CONCEPTS IN ARGUMENT

Compiled by : Mohammed z.
 CONTENTS
• DEFINING ARGUMENT
• NONARGUMENTATIVE PASSAGES
• INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION
• EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT

2
 WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?
• Arguments are composed of one or more premises and a conclusion.

• Premises are statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons why we should

accept another statement, the conclusion.

• conclusion is the statement in an argument that the premises are intended to prove or
support.

• so, an argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (called the premises)
are intended to prove or support another statement (called the conclusion).

• A statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false.

3
 Four things should be noted about statements.
First, a sentence may be used to express more than one statement. For example, the grammatical sentence

Roses are red and violets are blue

Second, a statement can sometimes be expressed as a phrase or an incomplete clause, rather than as a
complete declarative sentence. Consider the sentence

With mortgage interest rates at thirty-year lows, you owe it to yourself to consider refinancing your home.
(radio ad)

Third, not all sentences are statements. Example, questions, proposals exclamations , suggestions are not
statements

Fourth , statements can be about subjective matters of personal experience as well as objectively verifiable
matters of fact.

4
• Some sentences that look like nonstatements are actually
statements and can be used in arguments
• Alyssa, you should quit smoking. Don’t you realize how bad
that is for your health?
• Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel
ugly.
• How can we tell when a sentence that looks like a command
or suggestion is really an ought imperative? The key question
to ask is this: Can we accurately rephrase the sentence so
that it refers to what someone should or ought to do?

5
 IDENTIFYING PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS
• In identifying premises and conclusions, we are often
helped by indicator words.
• Indicator words are words or phrases that provide
clues that premises or conclusions are being put
forward.
• Premise indicators indicate that premises are being
offered.
• conclusion indicators indicate that conclusions are
being offered.
6
 Premise Indicators

• Since • in view of the fact that

• because • as indicated by
• for • judging from
• on account of
• given that
• seeing that
• considering that
• inasmuch as
• as

7
 Conclusion Indicators

• Therefore • which shows that

• thus • wherefore
• Hence • this implies that
• consequently • as a result
• So • this suggests that
• accordingly • this being so
• it follows that • we may infer that
• for this reason
• that is why

8
• Note: the existence of indicators can never be a guarantee
for a sentence to be premise or conclusion of an argument.
Consider the following examples:
• I haven’t seen you since high school.
• You’ve had that jacket for as long as I’ve known you.
• Thus far everything has been great.
• It was so cold that even the ski resorts shut down.
• I wouldn’t mind seeing that movie again.
• There is water on the floor because the sink overflowed.

• it’s so important to consider the context when determining the meaning of an

expression.
9
• Sometimes arguments may contain no indicator words . Consider the example below

I can’t be completely responsible for my life. After all, there are many
factors outside my control, people and forces that create obstacles
and undermine my efforts. And we are subject to pressures and
influences from within ourselves: feelings of greed, fear of death,
altruistic impulses, sexual compulsions, need for social acceptance,
and so on.

10
How can we find the conclusion of an argument when the argument contains no
indicator words?
• Find the main issue and ask yourself what position the writer or speaker
is taking on that issue.
• Look at the beginning or end of the passage; the conclusion is often (but
not always) found in one of those places.
• Ask yourself, “What is the writer or speaker trying to prove?” That will be
the conclusion.
• Try putting the word therefore before one of the statements. If it fits,
that statement is probably the conclusion.
• Try the “because” trick.

11
 WHAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT?
• five types of non-argumentative discourse that are sometimes confused
with arguments:

• Reports
• unsupported assertions
• conditional statements
• Illustrations
• explanations

12
 Reports
The purpose of a report is simply to convey information about a subject. Here is an
example of a report:

Sweeping changes occurred in demographics, economics, culture, and society

during the last quarter of the 20th century. The nation aged, and more of its people
gravitated to the Sunbelt. Sprawling “urban corridors” and “edge cities” challenged
older central cities as sites for commercial, as well as residential, development.
Rapid technological change fueled the growth of globalized industries, restructuring
the labor force to fit a “postindustrial” economy.

13
 Unsupported Assertions
Unsupported assertions are statements about what a speaker or writer
happens to believe. Such statements can be true or false, rational or
irrational, but they are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer
claims that they follow from, or support, other claims. Here is an example of
a series of unsupported assertions:

I believe that it is not dying that people are afraid of. Something else,
something more unsettling and more tragic than dying frightens us. We are
afraid of never having lived, of coming to the end of our days with the sense
that we were never really alive, that we never figured out what life was for.

14
 Conditional Statements
• A conditional statement is an if-then statement. Here are examples:
• If it rains, then the picnic will be canceled.
• You must speak French if you grew up in Quebec.
• If at first you don’t succeed, don’t try skydiving.
• Conditional statements are made up of two basic parts. The first part, the statement(s)
following the word if, is called the antecedent. The second part, the statement(s)
following the word then, is called the consequent.
• Conditional statements need not be explicitly in if-then form; in fact, in modern usage,
then is usually dropped. For example, the following statements are conditional
statements:
• Should it rain, the picnic will be canceled.
• In the event of rain, the picnic will be canceled.
• Peter will graduate, provided he passes Critical Thinking.

15
The relation between conditional statements and arguments may now be
summarized as follows:

• A single conditional statement is not an argument.

• A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the
conclusion (or both) of an argument.
• The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-
expressed to form an argument

Note : a conditional statement can be re-expressed to from an argument if and only if the antecedent of
the conditional is only a necessary condition for the its consequent.

16
 Consider the following examples:
1- If Rhode Island were larger than Ohio, and Ohio were larger than Texas, then Rhode Island would be
larger than Texas.

2 - If john fails Critical Thinking, he’ll be placed on academic probation.

John will fail Critical Thinking.
So, john will be placed on academic probation.

arguments can be composed entirely of conditional statements:

3 - If Tech scores on this play, I’ll eat my hat.

If I eat my hat, I’ll have a bad case of indigestion.
So, if Tech scores on this play, I’ll have a bad case of indigestion.

The first is not argument , though it contains conditional statement (inference) because the arguer
doesn’t assert anything. The second and third examples can be considered as argument because they
contain both inference and the statement to be asserted.

17
 Necessary and sufficient conditions

• A condition A is said to be necessary for a condition B, if (and only if) the falsity (/nonexistence
/non-occurrence) of A guarantees (or brings about) the falsity (/nonexistence /non-occurrence)
of B.

• A condition A is said to be sufficient for a condition B, if (and only if) the truth (/existence
/occurrence) of A guarantees (or brings about) the truth (/existence /occurrence) of B.

• The relationship between the two conditions must be exactly one of the following four
possibilities:

1. The first is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the second; or
2. The first is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for the second; or
3. The first is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the second; or
4. The first is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the second.

18
 Exercise
Identify which conditions best fits in the following relations

1. Thomas being a father is ______________condition for his being a male parent

2. Ojulu being older than bacha is ______________ condition for balcha being
younger than Ojulu.
3. Having a married brother is ______________ condition for being an aunt.
4. Wanting to succeed is ______________ condition for success.
5. Thomas being a male is ______________ condition, for being a father.
6. Being more than 6 feet (183 centimeters) tall is ______________ condition for
being 6 feet 3 inches
7. A table's being square is ______________ condition, for its having four sides.

19
 Illustrations

Illustration is the use of examples to make ideas more concrete and to make
generalizations more specific and detailed.

Illustrations are intended to provide examples of a claim, rather than prove or

support the claim. Here is an example:

Whenever a force is exerted on an object, the shape of the object can change. For example, when
you squeeze a rubber ball or strike a punching bag with your fist, the objects are deformed to some
extent.

20
 Explanations

Consider the following two statements:

• Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg.
• Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people may be
mistakenly executed.

• An explanation tries to show why something is the case, not to prove that it is the
case.

• Explanations have two parts. The statement that is explained is the explanandum.
The statement that does the explaining is the explanans. Thus, in the explanation.
• In everyday speech, we often use “argument” and “explanation” almost
interchangeably. How then does one distinguish arguments from explanations? There
are four basic tests.
21
The Common-Knowledge Test, is the statement that the passage seeks to
prove or explain a matter of common knowledge? If it is, the passage is
probably an explanation rather than an argument. (There’s usually little
point in trying to prove something that is already a well-known fact.)

The Past-Event Test, is the statement that the passage is seeking to prove
or explain an event that occurred in the past? If so, the passage is probably
an explanation rather than an argument because it is much more common
to try to explain why past events have occurred rather than to prove that
they occurred.

22
The Author’s Intent Test, is it the speaker’s or writer’s intent to prove or
establish that something is the case—that is, to provide reasons or
evidence for accepting a claim as true ? Or is it his intent to explain why
something is the case—that is, to offer an account of why some event has
occurred or why something is the way it is ? If the former, the passage is
an argument; if the latter, the passage is an explanation.

The Principle of Charity Test, the principle of charity, as we have seen,

requires that we always interpret unclear passages generously and, in
particular, that we never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the
evidence reasonably permits us to interpret it as not an argument at all.
This test often proves helpful when the other tests yield no clear answer.

23
 DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION
• Before we can effectively evaluate an argument, we need to understand what kind of
argument is being offered. Traditionally, arguments have been divided into two types:
deductive arguments and inductive arguments.
• It is often said that the difference between deduction and induction is that deduction
moves from general premises to particular conclusions, whereas induction moves
from particular premises to general conclusions. That, however, is a misconception.
• Here, for example, is a deductive argument that moves not from general premises to a
particular conclusion but from particular premises to a general conclusion:
Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865. (particular premise)
So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in the nineteenth century.
(general conclusion)
Here is an example of an inductive argument that moves from general premises to a
particular conclusion:
All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been good. (general premise)
Therefore, Stephen King’s next novel will probably be good. (particular conclusion)
24
 Key Differences between Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive arguments claim that . . . Inductive arguments claim that . . .

• If the premises are true, then the • If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true. conclusion is probably true.
• The conclusion follows necessarily • The conclusion follows probably
from the premises. from the premises.
• It is impossible for all the premises • It is unlikely for the premises to be
to be true and the conclusion true and the conclusion false.
false. • Although it is logically consistent
• It is logically inconsistent to assert to assert the premises and deny
the premises and deny the the conclusion, the conclusion is
conclusion; if you accept the probably true if the premises are
premises, you must accept the true.
conclusion
25
There are three tests that greatly simplify the task of determining
whether an argument should be regarded as deductive or
inductive:

• the indicator word test

• the strict necessity test
• the common pattern test

26
 The Indicator Word Test
• Just as we use indicator words to signal the assertion of premises or conclusions,
we use indicator words to signal when our arguments are deductive or inductive.

Deduction indicator words : induction indicator words:

• certainly • Probably
• it logically follows that • one would expect that
• definitely • Likely
• it is logical to conclude that • it is a good bet that
• absolutely • it is plausible to suppose that
• this logically implies that chances are that
• conclusively • it is reasonable to assume
• this entails that that odds are that

27
 The Strict Necessity Test
• All deductive arguments claim, explicitly or implicitly, that their conclusions follow
necessarily from their premises..
• The strict necessity test can be stated as follows:
• An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its
premises or it does not.
• If the argument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should always be treated as deductive.
• If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its
premises, the argument should normally be treated as inductive.
Consider the following arguments:
• Alan is a father. Therefore, Alan is a male. (deductive , why?)
• Jill is a six-year-old girl. Therefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat.
(inductive why?)

28
 The Common Pattern Test/typical kinds of arguments

Typically inductive arguments : Typically deductive arguments

• Argument based on prediction, • Argument based on definition
• Argument based on analogy • Argument based on
• An inductive generalization mathematics
• An argument from authority • Syllogism
• An argument based on signs
• A causal inference

29
COMMON PATTERNS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING
• Five common patterns of deductive reasoning:
 hypothetical syllogism
 categorical syllogism
 argument by elimination/disjunctive syllogism
 argument based on mathematics
 argument from definition

30
 Hypothetical Syllogism
• A syllogism is a three-line argument, that is, an argument that consists of exactly two
premises and a conclusion.

• A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that contains at least one hypothetical or

conditional (i.e., if-then ) premise.

examples of hypothetical syllogisms:

If the Tigers beat the Yankees, then the Tigers will make the playoffs.
The Tigers will beat the Yankees.
So, the Tigers will make the playoffs.

If I want to keep my financial aid, I’d better study hard.

I do want to keep my financial aid.
Therefore, I’d better study hard.
31
 Categorical Syllogism
• categorical syllogism may be defined as a three-line argument in which each
statement begins with the word all, some, or no.

two examples:

All oaks are trees.

All trees are plants.
So, all oaks are plants.

Some Democrats are elected officials.

All elected officials are politicians.
Therefore, some Democrats are politicians.

• Because categorical reasoning like this is such a familiar form of rigorous logical
reasoning, such arguments should nearly always be treated as deductive.
32
 Argument by Elimination
• An argument by elimination seeks to logically rule out
various possibilities until only a single possibility remains.
Here are two examples:
Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.
But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
Therefore, Joe walked to the library.
• Because the aim of such arguments is to logically exclude
every possible outcome except one, such arguments are
always deductive.

33
 Argument Based on Mathematics
• Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-step reasoning. Mathematicians don’t claim
that their conclusions are merely likely or probable. They claim to prove their
conclusions on the basis of precise mathematical concepts and reasoning.

• In an argument based on mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to depend largely or

entirely on some mathematical calculation or measurement (perhaps in conjunction
with one or more nonmathematical premises).

Light travels at a rate of 186,000 miles per second.

The sun is more than 93 million miles distant from the earth.
Therefore, it takes more than eight minutes for the sun’s light to reach the earth.

34
 Argument from Definition
• In an argument from definition , the conclusion is presented as
being “true by definition,” that is, as following simply by
definition from some key word or phrase used in the argument.
Here are two examples:
• Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a doctor.
• Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.
• Because a statement that follows by definition is necessarily true
if the relevant definition is true, arguments from definition are
always deductive

35
 COMMON PATTERNS OF INDUCTIVE REASONING
• six common patterns of inductive reasoning:
• inductive generalization
• predictive argument
• argument from authority
• causal argument
• statistical argument
• argument from analogy

36
 An inductive generalization
An inductive generalization is an argument in which a generalization is claimed to be
probably true based on information about some members of a particular class. Here are
two examples:

All dinosaur bones so far discovered have been more than sixty-five million
years old. Therefore, probably all dinosaur bones are more than sixty-five million years
old.

Six months ago I met a farmer from Iowa, and he was friendly.
Four months ago I met an insurance salesman from Iowa, and he was friendly.
Two months ago I met a dentist from Iowa, and she was friendly.
I guess most people from Iowa are friendly.

Because all inductive generalizations claim that their conclusions are probable rather than
certain, such arguments are always inductive.
37
 Predictive Argument
• A prediction is a statement about what may or will happen in the future. In a
predictive argument, a prediction is defended with reasons. Predictive arguments
are among the most common patterns of inductive reasoning. Here are two examples:

It has rained in Vancouver every February since weather records have been kept.
Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next February.

Most U.S. presidents have been tall.

Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be tall.

• Because nothing in the future is absolutely certain, arguments containing predictions

are usually inductive. It should be noted, however, that predictions can be argued for
deductively.

38
 Argument from analogy
• is a type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to
infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed..

• Structure :

P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.

P has been observed to have further property x.
Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

• Strength of argument based on authority based on:

• The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the

conclusion.
• The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.
• The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy
39
 Causal Argument
• A causal argument asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else.
Here are three examples:

I can’t log on. The network must be down.

Rashid isn’t allergic to peanuts. I saw him eat a bag of peanuts on the flight from
Dallas.

• It cannot be assumed, however, that causal arguments are always inductive. The
following causal argument, for example, is clearly deductive:

Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it rusts.

This iron pipe has been exposed to oxygen.
Therefore, it will rust.

40
 Statistical Argument
• A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence—that is, evidence that
some percentage of some group or class has some particular
characteristic.

Doctor to patient: Studies show that condoms have an annual failure rate of 2
to 3 percent, even if they are used consistently and correctly. So, you should
not assume that condoms will provide complete protection from the risk of
pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

• Because statistical evidence is generally used to support claims that are

presented as probable rather than certain, statistical arguments are usually
inductive.
41
 Argument from authority
• An argument from authority , also called an appeal to authority,
or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which
the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to
support an argument
Structure :
Person A claim that X is true.
Person A are experts in the field concerning X.
Therefore, X should be believed.

42
 EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS
In the proper sense of the term, an argument can’t be evaluated as
god /bad, right/wrong, correct/incorrect, acceptable /inacceptable
etc. we have got distinct terminologies to employ to evaluate
arguments. Namely :

• Terminologies to evaluate deductive argument : valid, invalid,

sound and unsound.

• Terminologies to evaluate to inductive argument : strong, weak,

cogent and unguent.

43
 Valid Deductive Argument
valid deductive argument is an argument in which it is impossible
for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Put another
way, a valid deductive argument (or valid argument for short) is an
argument in which these conditions apply:
• If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
• The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
• The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth of
the conclusion.
• It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as true and
deny the conclusion.

44
 Note: truth value is not important for identifying validity.
Consider the following argument forms:
All adlers are bobkins.
All bobkins are crockers.
Therefore, all adlers are crockers.

All A are B.
All B are C. valid If P then Q
P valid
So, All A are C. so, Q

All A are B. If P then Q

All C are B. invalid Q invalid
So, All A are C. So, P

45
 VALIDITY DOESN’T REQUIRE TRUTH VALUE !

46
• some valid arguments have false premises and a false conclusion. For example:
All squares are circles.
All circles are triangles.
Therefore, all squares are triangles.
• Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion. For example:
All fruits are vegetables.
Spinach is a fruit.
Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.
• And some valid arguments have true premises and a true conclusion. For example:
If you’re reading this, you are alive.
You are reading this.
Therefore, you are alive.
• There is, however, one combination of truth or falsity that no valid argument
can have. No valid argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion.

47
 Invalid Deductive Argument
A deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises is said to be
an invalid deductive argument. Here are four examples:
True premise true conclusion
All dogs are animals.
Lassie is an animal.
Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
True premise false conclusion
If I’m a monkey’s uncle, then I’m a primate.
I’m not a monkey’s uncle.
So, I’m not a primate.
False premise true conclusion
All pears are vegetables.
All fruits are vegetables.
Therefore, all pears are fruits.
False premise false conclusion
All dogs are cats.
All cats are whales.
Therefore, all whales are dogs.
48
Sound argument = valid + all true premise
Unsound argument = if at least one of the above conditions is
missed.

49
 Strong Inductive Argument
the conclusion follows probably from the premises. Put
otherwise, a strong inductive argument is an argument in which
the following conditions apply:
• If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
• The premises provide probable, but not logically conclusive,
grounds for the truth of the conclusion.
• The premises, if true, make the conclusion likely.

50
 NOTE THAT : LIKE VALIDITY, STRENGTH DOESN’T REQUIRE TRUTH VALUE.

51
 Some strong arguments have false premises and a probably false conclusion. For
example:
All previous U.S. vice presidents have been women.
Therefore, it is likely that the next U.S. vice president will be a woman.
Some inductively strong arguments have false premises and a probably true
conclusion. For example:
Every previous U.S. president has been clean-shaven.
So, the next U.S. president probably will be clean-shaven.
And some inductively strong arguments have true premises and a probably true
conclusion. For example:
No previous U.S. president has been a native Alaskan.
So, the next U.S. president probably will not be a native Alaskan.
As with valid deductive arguments, no strong inductive argument can have true
premises and a probably false conclusion.

52
 Weak Inductive Arguments,
like invalid deductive arguments, can have any combination of truth or falsity in the
premises and conclusion. Here are some examples:
True premise and probably true conclusion
Most U.S. presidents have been married.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be a man.
True premise and probably false conclusion
Most U.S. presidents have been over fifty years old.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be single.
False premise and probably true conclusion
Most U.S. presidents have been women.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be married.
False premise and probably false conclusion
Most U.S. presidents have been less than 5 feet tall.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be single.
53
Cogent argument : an argument both inductively strong and has all
true premises.
unguent argument= an inductive argument which is either weak or
has at least one false premise.

54