Identifying Arguments
So relevant truth becomes an issue.
Identifying Arguments
Arguments are composed of premises and a conclusion, where the premises are said to support, prove, or provide evidence for the conclusion.
Grammar, punctuation, and reading comprehension
Consider the following statement from Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan:
Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For "it" is a voluntary act; and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.
Let us begin by asking what does the underscored word "it" refer to? An understanding of the pronoun "it" is absolutely essential to an understanding of Hobbes's argument. The pronoun "it" refers to the whole phrase "whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounces it." How do we know this? To began with, a pronoun refers to an antecedent, that is, to a word or phrase that comes before the pronoun. Next, a pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number, that is, if a pronoun is singular then the antecedent must be singular. The pronoun "it" is singular and must therefore, refer to a singular antecedent.
In Hobbes's statement there are several singular antecedents. Usually, the immediately preceding noun with the same number is the antecedent. The immediately preceding singular noun is "good." But a "good" is not an act. There are two other clues: context and structure. Structurally, there is another "it" that has as its antecedent the singular phrase "whosoever"...renounceth "it." Moreover, from the context the only act mentioned was the transferring and renouncing of a right. Consequently, it is plausable to assume that "it" refers to the transferring and renouncing of a right.
Let us consider another element of the same statement. " For it is a voluntary; and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself." A semicolon (;) appears in the middle of the sentence. The function of a semicolon is to connect grammatical units of equal rank. That is, we use a semicolon to connect two main clauses not joined by "and," "for," or some similar conjunction term, and between two units containing commas. In our example, we have two equal units, each of which could be a separate sentences.
(1) "it is a voluntary act"
AND
(2) "of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself."
As we shall see below in our discussion of rules for identifying premises, the word "for" significes that whatever follows in the same grammatical unit is a premise. In our example, two things follows the word "for" in the sae grammatical unit is a premise. In our eample, two things follows the word "for" in the same gramatical unit. Thus, we may conclude that Hobes's statement has at least two premises:
(1) "it is a voluntary act" (premise one);
(2) "if the voluntary ats of every man, the object is some good to himself" (premise two).
The semicolon or the comma before a coordinating conjuction (e.g., "and") signifies a unity. In this way, we are able to identify how many premises followed the word "for."
From our discussion of the role of pronouns, we know that the pronoun "it" refers to "the renouncing transferring of a right." If we substitute this information into the example, we obtain the following:
Premise two: The object of every man's voluntary act is some good to himself. (Notice that we have modified the second premise into a more convient form without changing its meaning).
Even without knowing any logic, the reader can see that a conclusion suggests itself simply from reading the two premises. What conclusion? We can conclude that transferring or renouncing a right is an action perfored with the intention of gaining some good for the agent. When we look at the original statement by Hobbes, we find that this is exactly what he says in the very first sentence.
Conclusion: "Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferring to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby."
Rules for identifying Premises and Conclusions
Rule one: We do not identify premises and conclusions by content.
Rule two: We do not identify premises and conclusions by position or location within a paragraph. For stylistic or other reasons, the premises and the conclusion can appear anywhere.
Rule Three: The appearance of the following word or words at the beginning of a sentence or clause is a conclusion: therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently, accordingly, it follows that, as a result, I conclude, and synonymous terms.
In the following arguments, the conclusion is identified as the following the underscored words.
Argument I:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Argument II:
It rained yesterday, so I feel confident that the reservoir is full.
Argument III:
Thus, after having thought well on this matter, and after exaining all things with care, I must finally conclude and maintain that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true every time that I pronounce it or conceive it in my mind. (Descartes)
Rule four: The appearance of the following word or words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that the sentence or clause is a premise: since, for, because, whereas, as, in as much as, see that, and synonyous terms,
In the following argument, the premises are identified s the clause or clauses following the underscored words.
Argument: Since Mr. Rivera is an alien, and because no aliens can vote in U.S. elections, we must conclude that Mr. Rivera cannot vote in the next election.
There is another common pattern found in arguments. Often we find two sentenes or clauses flanking the words "for" or "because." When this pattern appears (as in the case of the previous argument fro Hobbes, it means that what precedes "for" or "because" is a conclusion, and what follows "for" or "because" is one or more premises.
"__________ for __________"
(C) (P)
"__________ because __________"
(conclusion) (premise)
Rule Five: Supply implicit or missing premises and conclusions. Many times an argument is so clear from its context that the author provides only part of it. In these cases it is up to the reader to suply the missing or even the conclusion. This kind of argument is referred to as an ethymeme.
Consider the following example, "Mr. Wong is an illegal alien, so he is not permitted to vote." We can identify the part of the sentence following "so" as the conclusion. The first pat is a premise. However, there is another obvious premise that is not stated, namely, that, "Illegal aliens are not permitted to vote." The complete argument now looks like this:
Premise: Illegal aliens are not permitted to vote. (supplied by the reader)
Premise: Mr. Wong is an illegal alient.
____________________________________________________
Conclusion: Mr. Wong is not permitted to vote.
Rule six: Any proposition may be both a premise and a conclusion when there is more than one argument in the same passage. A set of interlocking arguments is called a sorites (sor-i-tez). The conclusion to one argument may be the premise to the second argument.
The standard for for the presentation of a sorites is as follows:
Argument I:
Premise (1): __________________________________
Premise (2): __________________________________
Conclusion1: __________________________________
Argument II:
Premise (1): (usually the conclusion of Argument I)
__________________________________
Premise (2): __________________________________
Conclusion2: __________________________________
Sample Problem One
Consider the following sorites from Aristotle's Politics:
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.
An examination of the pronouns and punctuation reveals the folowing. In the first sentence, a semicolon appears and breaks up the sentence before the word "for," a key clue. The second sentence begins with a repetition of the same point made in the first sentence but adds something extra. The addition(s) include two clauses beginning with relative pronouns. These clauses are descriptions of some of the characteristics of the state. The second sentence then ends by ascribing a new property to the state, a characteristic we did not find in the first sentence.
When we look for clues to help identify preises and conclusions, we find one important clue, the word "for." We know that what precedes "for" is a conclusion and what follows is a premise. Therefore, the clause "every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good" is a conclusion Moreover, we know now that the clause "mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good" is a premise.
(C) for (P)
(C) because (P)
There is something else worth noticing about the first sentence. Given what it says, we may add to it a missing or implicit premise, namely, that a community is the product of human activity. We then obtain the following argument:
Argument II:
Premise (1): Mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. (the clue here is the word "for")
Premise (2): A community is the product of human activity. (implicit premise)
________________________________________________________
Conclusion: Every community is established with a view to some good. (the clue here is that this clause precedes the word "for.")
There is still one unused part of the first sentence, namely, "every state is a community of some kind." Since this also precedes the word "for," we know that it depends upon the preise estalished by "for." But we already have a conclusion indicated by what precedes "for." Clearly what we have is yet another argument dependent upon what was established by the word "for."
Argument II:
Premise (1): Every community is established with a view to some good. (Conclusion1)
Premise (2): Every state is a community of some kind.
__________________________________________________
Conclusion 2: Every state is established with a view to some good.
We may now complete the argument by adding the new or additional information present in the remainder of the passage.
Argument III:
Premise (1): Every state is established with a view to some good. (Conclusion 2)
Premise (2): The state is a political community which is the highest of all communities and which embraces all the rest.
___________________________________________________________________
Conclusion3: The state aims at good in a greater degree than any other comunity, and at the highest good.
Sample Problem Two
A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. British philosopher Bishop Berkely.
It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct fro their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence solver this principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceived it to involves a manifest contradiction. For, what are the aforementioned objects but the things we perceive y sense ? and what do we erceive besides our own ideas or sensations ? and is it not plainly repugnant that any of these, or any combination of them should exist unperceived ?.
Sentence one, "It is indeed..........understanding," simply says (when transposed into contemporary English) that some people have the strange belief that sensible objects exist independently of perception. So far we do not know if this is a premise or a conclusion.
Sentence two, "But.........to involve a manifest contradiction, "says that the belief mentioned in sentence one is contradictory or false. Instead of having two sentences, we could reduce what Berkely says to one sentence, namely, "The belief that houses, mountains, rivers...all sensible objects have an existence distinct from being perceived is a contradiction."
The third and final sentence begins with the word "for." Immediately, we know that our previously reconstructed sentence is a conclusion and that what follows the word "for" is a preise or set of premises. Sentence three also has some noteworthy punctuation. It contains three rhetorical questions, that is, questions that do not require an answer since they are really meant to be assertions with which the author expects you to agree. The word "for" covers all three rhetorical questions (disguised assertions) as seen by the fact that they are part of the same sentence, since none of them begins with a capital letter.
We are now ready to present the argument. Since there are three premises, we could present the argument as having three premises and one conclusion. However, as soon as we list the first two premises an implicit conclusion is suggested. So there must be at least two arguments.
Argument I:
Premise (1): Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are things we perceive by sense. ("Aforementioned objects" refers to houses, mountains, rivers, etc.)
Premise (2): Whatever we perceive are our own ideas or sensations
_______________________________________________________
Conclusion1: Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are our own ideas or sensations. (implicit conclusion)
Argument II:
Premise (1): Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are our own ideas or sensations. (conclusion1)
Premise (2): None of our ideas or sensations, or any combination of the can exist unperceived. ("any of these" refers to ideas or sensations)
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusion2: The belief that houses, mountains, rivers, etc., have an existence distinct from their being perceived is a contradiction.
Identifying Arguments
Arguments are composed of premises and a conclusion, where the premises are said to support, prove, or provide evidence for the conclusion.
Grammar, punctuation, and reading comprehension
Consider the following statement from Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan:
Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For "it" is a voluntary act; and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.
Let us begin by asking what does the underscored word "it" refer to? An understanding of the pronoun "it" is absolutely essential to an understanding of Hobbes's argument. The pronoun "it" refers to the whole phrase "whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounces it." How do we know this? To began with, a pronoun refers to an antecedent, that is, to a word or phrase that comes before the pronoun. Next, a pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number, that is, if a pronoun is singular then the antecedent must be singular. The pronoun "it" is singular and must therefore, refer to a singular antecedent.
In Hobbes's statement there are several singular antecedents. Usually, the immediately preceding noun with the same number is the antecedent. The immediately preceding singular noun is "good." But a "good" is not an act. There are two other clues: context and structure. Structurally, there is another "it" that has as its antecedent the singular phrase "whosoever"...renounceth "it." Moreover, from the context the only act mentioned was the transferring and renouncing of a right. Consequently, it is plausable to assume that "it" refers to the transferring and renouncing of a right.
Let us consider another element of the same statement. " For it is a voluntary; and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself." A semicolon (;) appears in the middle of the sentence. The function of a semicolon is to connect grammatical units of equal rank. That is, we use a semicolon to connect two main clauses not joined by "and," "for," or some similar conjunction term, and between two units containing commas. In our example, we have two equal units, each of which could be a separate sentences.
(1) "it is a voluntary act"
AND
(2) "of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself."
As we shall see below in our discussion of rules for identifying premises, the word "for" significes that whatever follows in the same grammatical unit is a premise. In our example, two things follows the word "for" in the sae grammatical unit is a premise. In our eample, two things follows the word "for" in the same gramatical unit. Thus, we may conclude that Hobes's statement has at least two premises:
(1) "it is a voluntary act" (premise one);
(2) "if the voluntary ats of every man, the object is some good to himself" (premise two).
The semicolon or the comma before a coordinating conjuction (e.g., "and") signifies a unity. In this way, we are able to identify how many premises followed the word "for."
From our discussion of the role of pronouns, we know that the pronoun "it" refers to "the renouncing transferring of a right." If we substitute this information into the example, we obtain the following:
Premise two: The object of every man's voluntary act is some good to himself. (Notice that we have modified the second premise into a more convient form without changing its meaning).
Even without knowing any logic, the reader can see that a conclusion suggests itself simply from reading the two premises. What conclusion? We can conclude that transferring or renouncing a right is an action perfored with the intention of gaining some good for the agent. When we look at the original statement by Hobbes, we find that this is exactly what he says in the very first sentence.
Conclusion: "Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferring to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby."
Rules for identifying Premises and Conclusions
Rule one: We do not identify premises and conclusions by content.
Rule two: We do not identify premises and conclusions by position or location within a paragraph. For stylistic or other reasons, the premises and the conclusion can appear anywhere.
Rule Three: The appearance of the following word or words at the beginning of a sentence or clause is a conclusion: therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently, accordingly, it follows that, as a result, I conclude, and synonymous terms.
In the following arguments, the conclusion is identified as the following the underscored words.
Argument I:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Argument II:
It rained yesterday, so I feel confident that the reservoir is full.
Argument III:
Thus, after having thought well on this matter, and after exaining all things with care, I must finally conclude and maintain that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true every time that I pronounce it or conceive it in my mind. (Descartes)
Rule four: The appearance of the following word or words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that the sentence or clause is a premise: since, for, because, whereas, as, in as much as, see that, and synonyous terms,
In the following argument, the premises are identified s the clause or clauses following the underscored words.
Argument: Since Mr. Rivera is an alien, and because no aliens can vote in U.S. elections, we must conclude that Mr. Rivera cannot vote in the next election.
There is another common pattern found in arguments. Often we find two sentenes or clauses flanking the words "for" or "because." When this pattern appears (as in the case of the previous argument fro Hobbes, it means that what precedes "for" or "because" is a conclusion, and what follows "for" or "because" is one or more premises.
"__________ for __________"
(C) (P)
"__________ because __________"
(conclusion) (premise)
Rule Five: Supply implicit or missing premises and conclusions. Many times an argument is so clear from its context that the author provides only part of it. In these cases it is up to the reader to suply the missing or even the conclusion. This kind of argument is referred to as an ethymeme.
Consider the following example, "Mr. Wong is an illegal alien, so he is not permitted to vote." We can identify the part of the sentence following "so" as the conclusion. The first pat is a premise. However, there is another obvious premise that is not stated, namely, that, "Illegal aliens are not permitted to vote." The complete argument now looks like this:
Premise: Illegal aliens are not permitted to vote. (supplied by the reader)
Premise: Mr. Wong is an illegal alient.
____________________________________________________
Conclusion: Mr. Wong is not permitted to vote.
Rule six: Any proposition may be both a premise and a conclusion when there is more than one argument in the same passage. A set of interlocking arguments is called a sorites (sor-i-tez). The conclusion to one argument may be the premise to the second argument.
The standard for for the presentation of a sorites is as follows:
Argument I:
Premise (1): __________________________________
Premise (2): __________________________________
Conclusion1: __________________________________
Argument II:
Premise (1): (usually the conclusion of Argument I)
__________________________________
Premise (2): __________________________________
Conclusion2: __________________________________
Sample Problem One
Consider the following sorites from Aristotle's Politics:
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.
An examination of the pronouns and punctuation reveals the folowing. In the first sentence, a semicolon appears and breaks up the sentence before the word "for," a key clue. The second sentence begins with a repetition of the same point made in the first sentence but adds something extra. The addition(s) include two clauses beginning with relative pronouns. These clauses are descriptions of some of the characteristics of the state. The second sentence then ends by ascribing a new property to the state, a characteristic we did not find in the first sentence.
When we look for clues to help identify preises and conclusions, we find one important clue, the word "for." We know that what precedes "for" is a conclusion and what follows is a premise. Therefore, the clause "every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good" is a conclusion Moreover, we know now that the clause "mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good" is a premise.
(C) for (P)
(C) because (P)
There is something else worth noticing about the first sentence. Given what it says, we may add to it a missing or implicit premise, namely, that a community is the product of human activity. We then obtain the following argument:
Argument II:
Premise (1): Mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. (the clue here is the word "for")
Premise (2): A community is the product of human activity. (implicit premise)
________________________________________________________
Conclusion: Every community is established with a view to some good. (the clue here is that this clause precedes the word "for.")
There is still one unused part of the first sentence, namely, "every state is a community of some kind." Since this also precedes the word "for," we know that it depends upon the preise estalished by "for." But we already have a conclusion indicated by what precedes "for." Clearly what we have is yet another argument dependent upon what was established by the word "for."
Argument II:
Premise (1): Every community is established with a view to some good. (Conclusion1)
Premise (2): Every state is a community of some kind.
__________________________________________________
Conclusion 2: Every state is established with a view to some good.
We may now complete the argument by adding the new or additional information present in the remainder of the passage.
Argument III:
Premise (1): Every state is established with a view to some good. (Conclusion 2)
Premise (2): The state is a political community which is the highest of all communities and which embraces all the rest.
___________________________________________________________________
Conclusion3: The state aims at good in a greater degree than any other comunity, and at the highest good.
Sample Problem Two
A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. British philosopher Bishop Berkely.
It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct fro their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence solver this principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceived it to involves a manifest contradiction. For, what are the aforementioned objects but the things we perceive y sense ? and what do we erceive besides our own ideas or sensations ? and is it not plainly repugnant that any of these, or any combination of them should exist unperceived ?.
Sentence one, "It is indeed..........understanding," simply says (when transposed into contemporary English) that some people have the strange belief that sensible objects exist independently of perception. So far we do not know if this is a premise or a conclusion.
Sentence two, "But.........to involve a manifest contradiction, "says that the belief mentioned in sentence one is contradictory or false. Instead of having two sentences, we could reduce what Berkely says to one sentence, namely, "The belief that houses, mountains, rivers...all sensible objects have an existence distinct from being perceived is a contradiction."
The third and final sentence begins with the word "for." Immediately, we know that our previously reconstructed sentence is a conclusion and that what follows the word "for" is a preise or set of premises. Sentence three also has some noteworthy punctuation. It contains three rhetorical questions, that is, questions that do not require an answer since they are really meant to be assertions with which the author expects you to agree. The word "for" covers all three rhetorical questions (disguised assertions) as seen by the fact that they are part of the same sentence, since none of them begins with a capital letter.
We are now ready to present the argument. Since there are three premises, we could present the argument as having three premises and one conclusion. However, as soon as we list the first two premises an implicit conclusion is suggested. So there must be at least two arguments.
Argument I:
Premise (1): Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are things we perceive by sense. ("Aforementioned objects" refers to houses, mountains, rivers, etc.)
Premise (2): Whatever we perceive are our own ideas or sensations
_______________________________________________________
Conclusion1: Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are our own ideas or sensations. (implicit conclusion)
Argument II:
Premise (1): Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are our own ideas or sensations. (conclusion1)
Premise (2): None of our ideas or sensations, or any combination of the can exist unperceived. ("any of these" refers to ideas or sensations)
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusion2: The belief that houses, mountains, rivers, etc., have an existence distinct from their being perceived is a contradiction.
Comments