A Caution on Reconstruction

1
A Caution on Reconstruction

• The Treatment of a disjunctive statement and a
  conditional statement

2
Treatment of a disjunctive statement and of a
conditional statement

• Consider the following statements
• Either Red Sox or Yankees will win the World
  Series.
• You are a philosopher or have a good partner.
• These sentences are called disjunctive
  statements.
• One caution in reconstructing an argument is that
  you should never break a disjunctive statement or
  a conditional statement (if-then statement) into
  two separate premises or conclusions.

3
An Argument that Involves a Disjunctive Statement

• Consider the following argument
• As a side you order either a cup of soup or a
  bowl of salad. You order a bowl of salad. So you
  do not order a cup of soup.
• Is it OK to reconstruct the argument as follows?
• As a side you order a cup of soup.
• As a side you order a bowl of salad.
• You order a bowl of salad.
• ????????????????
• You do not order a cup of soup.

4
Dont break a disjunctive statement into separate
premises or conclusions

• A disjunctive statement does not state that both
  alternatives are true.
• However, putting the alternatives separately
  indicates that both of them are true.
• This is why we should not separate a disjunctive
  statement into two separate premises or
  conclusions.
• The argument on the last slide should be
  reconstructed as follows
• As a side you order either a cup of soup or a
  bowl of salad.
• You order a bowl of salad.
• ????????????????
• You do not order a cup of soup.

5
An Argument that Involves a Conditional Statement

• Consider the following argument
• Makoto will repeat the same mistake. Makoto is
  stupid. And if Makoto is stupid, he will repeat
  the same mistake.
• Is it OK to reconstruct the argument as follows?
• Makoto will repeat the same mistake.
• Makoto is stupid.
• Makoto is stupid.
• ????????????????
• Makoto will repeat the same mistake.

6
Dont break a conditional statement into separate
premises or conclusions

• One problem the reconstruction breaks a
  conditional statement into a premise (Makoto is
  stupid) and the conclusion (Makoto will repeat
  the same mistake).
• A conditional statement neither asserts that the
  if-part is true, nor asserts that the other part
  is true.
• It just asserts that the if-part being true makes
  the other part true.
• However, putting the if-part and the other part
  separately indicates that they are separately
  true.
• This is why we should not break a conditional
  statement into two lines in the reconstruction of
  an argument.

7
The Correct Reconstruction

• Makoto is stupid.
• If Makoto is stupid, he will repeat the same
  mistake.
• ????????????????
• Makoto will repeat the same mistake.

8
Continued

• In particular, dont make the mistake of taking
  the if-part of a conditional to be a premise and
  the other part to be the conclusion.
• For example, consider If a man wonders whether
  he loves his girlfriend, he does not love her
  anymore.
• You should not take this to be an argument like
  this
• A man wonders whether he loves his girlfriend.
• ----------------------------
• A man does not love his girlfriend anymore.

9
Other Ways of Making Conditional Statements

• Assuming that, provided that etc. have the
  same function as if, i.e., making a conditional
  statement.
• So dont break the sentences involving assuming
  that, provided that etc. into two separate
  lines in reconstruction.

10
Incompletely Stated Arguments
11
Incompletely Stated Arguments

• Many arguments in common usage are incompletely
  stated one or more of the premises/conclusion is
  not stated explicitly.

12
Importance of Completely Stating Arguments

• When checking whether an argument is good or bad,
  you should state it as completely as possible.
  Why?
• Because hidden premises, when exposed, often turn
  out to be false.
• For example, consider the following argument
• Your tires have made the coast-to-coast drive
  six times without trouble. Your tires should hold
  out for this coast-to-coast drive.
• The most plausible candidate of the hidden
  premise is
• Most of the tires that have made the
  coast-to-coast drive six times without trouble
  will hold out for another coast-to-coast drive.
• Because tires wear away, this hidden premise is
  implausible.

13
How to Completely State Arguments 4
Considerations

• Supply only the premise or conclusion that the
  speaker intends to uphold.
• Dont supplement a premise or conclusion that the
  speaker does not intend to uphold.
• Because we are reconstructing the speakers
  argument, we should not attribute to him what he
  does not upholds.

14
2. A supplemented premise must make clear why the
explicitly stated premise supports the conclusion.

• Consider this argument Because Sam is an OSU
  student, she is from Ohio.
• Is Sams parents were also OSU students a good
  candidate for the missing premise?
• No. Because it does not connect the explicitly
  stated premise (Sam is an OSU student) with the
  conclusion (Sam is from Ohio), so the speaker
  might not uphold it as being true.
• In this case, Most of the OSU students are from
  Ohio makes clear why Sam is a OSU student
  supports Sam is from Ohio, and so it is a good
  candidate for the missing premise.

15
3. Supplement a premise that is as plausible as
possible

• To explain this requirement, consider the
  argument Because I am cool, I am popular.
• Does the premise provides a reason for accepting
  the conclusion?
• As this illustrates, a premise can provide a
  reason for a conclusion only if it is more
  plausible than the conclusion itself.
• Because an arguer presumably intends to provide a
  reason, The good reconstruction of her argument
  supplements a plausible premise.

16
4. Putting all and only necessary details in the
supplied premise

• Suppose I give you the following argument
• Makoto has no car and wears rags.
• ----------------------------
• Makoto is not rich.
• This argument is incomplete there is a missing
  premise. What is it?
• Probably, Most people who have no car and wear
  rags are not rich.
• Notice that this one is better than the following
  alternatives
• Most people who have no car are not rich.
• Most people who wear rags are not rich.
• These sentences fail to utilize some info in
  Makoto has no car and wears rags. This
  deficiency deprives the argument of some
  strength.
• How about the alternative Most people who have
  no car and wears rags and have black hairs are
  not rich?
• This involves the additional element people
  having black hairs are not rich, which the
  speaker does not intend to say. This excessive
  version is an implausible interpretation of the
  intended argument.

17
Summary

• Supply only the premise or conclusion that the
  speaker intends to uphold.
• A supplemented premise must make clear why the
  explicitly stated premise supports the
  conclusion.
• Supplement a premise that is as plausible as
  possible.
• Putting all and only necessary details in the
  supplied premise.

18
Incompletely Stated Arguments An Example

• Example Makoto is a Japanese. So, we may
  conclude that Makoto is a karate expert.
• This argument is missing a premise. What?
• A clue it is a generalization.
• The answer
• All Japanese are karate experts.
• Or more plausibly Most Japanese are karate
  experts.
• (Well, both of them are false.)

19
Arguments Completely Stated

• Makoto is a Japanese.
• Most Japanese are karate experts.
• ???????????????????? Makoto is a karate expert.

20
Separating Arguments
21
Separating Arguments

• Sometimes a passage includes more than one
  conclusion.
• Ex.1 Participant Arguments on p. 24 of Salmons
  book
• Ex.2 Lenins Arguments on pp. 24-5 of Salmons
  book.
• In such a case, it is important to distinguish
  premises for one conclusion from premises for
  another conclusion.
• Thus, in restating such a passage in standard
  form, you should separate it into arguments with
  different conclusions.
• This often requires you to write one sentence
  twice first as a conclusion of one argument,
  second as a premise of another argument.
• Let me show how the above two passages can be
  reconstructed in standard form.

22
Participant Arguments (on p. 24 of Salmons book)
in Standard Form

• Argument A
• In 1998, the average life expectancy for U.S.
  women at age 65 was 19.2 years, compared with
  15.7 years for men.
• Women tend to live longer than men.
• Argument B
• In 1996, women who worked full-time, year-round
  earned only 74 cents for every dollar earned by
  men.
• On average, women earn less than men.

23
Continued

• Argument C
• A 1997 survey found that 49 percent of women had
  employer-sponsored pensions compared with 70
  percent of men, and only 45 percent of women had
  401(k) retirement plans compared with 59 percent
  of men.
• Women have less pension coverage than men.
• Argument D (the Main Argument)
• Women tend to live longer than men.
• On average, women earn less than men.
• Women have less pension coverage than men.
• Women need to invest more for retirement.
• Note that the premises in Argument D are the
  conclusion of Argument A, B and C.

24
Lenins Arguments in Standard Form

• Argument A
• There can be no talk of an independent ideology
  formulated by the working masses themselves in
  the process of their movement.
• The only choice is either bourgeois or socialist
  ideology.
• Argument B
• The only choice is either bourgeois or socialist
  ideology.
• To belittle the socialist ideology in any way,
  to turn aside from it in the slightest degree
  means to strengthen the bourgeois ideology.
• Note that There is no middle course is omitted
  because it is a mere rephrase of The only choice
  is

25
Separating Arguments Another Example

• Mars would be the next logical niche for human
  expansion in the universe. Why Mars? Clearly,
  Mars will have priority in any manned solar
  system exploration program because it offers the
  least severe environment for humans. Due to its
  atmosphere, its accessible surface, its probable
  availability of water and its relatively moderate
  temperatures it is the most hospitable of all
  the planets other than earth. Moreover, Mars
  resources include materials that could be adapted
  to support human life, including air, fuel,
  fertilizers, building materials and an
  environment that could grow food. James M. Beggs

26
Pay Attention to Indicator Words!

• Where can you find indicator words?
• Mars would be the next logical niche for human
  expansion in the universe. Why Mars? Clearly,
  Mars will have priority in any manned solar
  system exploration program because it offers the
  least severe environment for humans. Due to its
  atmosphere, its accessible surface, its probable
  availability of water and its relatively moderate
  temperatures it is the most hospitable of all
  the planets other than earth. Moreover, Mars
  resources include materials that could be adapted
  to support human life, including air, fuel,
  fertilizers, building materials and an
  environment that could grow food.

27
Identifying Premises P Conclusions C
(Yellowed are irrelevant or repetitious parts.)

• (CA) Mars would be the next logical niche for
  human expansion in the universe. Why Mars?
  (Repetition of CA) Clearly, Mars will have
  priority in any manned solar system exploration
  program because (PA1 CC) it offers the least
  severe environment for humans. Due to (PB1) its
  atmosphere, (PB2) its accessible surface, (PB3)
  its probable availability of water and (PB4) its
  relatively moderate temperatures (CB PC1) it
  is the most hospitable of all the planets other
  than earth. Moreover, (PA2 CD) Mars resources
  include materials that could be adapted to
  support human life, including (PD1) air, (PD2)
  fuel, (PD3) fertilizers, (PD4) building materials
  and (PD5) an environment that could grow food.

28
Separating ArgumentsEx. Reconstruction

• Notice that in the reconstructed argument in the
  course packet, phrases in the original passage
  that are premises are restated in complete
  declarative sentences.
• Notice also that repetitious parts of the passage
  are eliminated in reconstruction.

B
D
Intermediate Conclusion (CBC1)
C
Intermediate Conclusion (CCA1)
A
Intermediate Conclusion (CDA2)
Main Conclusion (CA)
29
Procedure for Reconstructing Everyday Arguments
Seven Steps

• Step 1 Identify each inferential step (the
  conclusion and each premise). In order to succeed
  in the identification, you should ask two
  questions we discussed and pay attention both to
  indicator words and to the context the argument
  is given.
• Step 2 Identify any sentence that should be
  omitted because it is repetitious or irrelevant
  to the argument. Illustrations and emotionally
  appealing premises that are neither premises nor
  the conclusion, are irrelevant.
• Step 3 Omit such a sentence.

30
Procedure for Reconstructing Everyday Arguments
(Continued)

• Step 4 Rewrite premises and conclusions in
  complete declarative sentences, e.g., rewrite
  rhetorical questions and non-sentential phrases.
• Step 5 Identify any places where premises and/or
  conclusions are missing.
• Step 6 Determine the most appropriate statements
  to serve as the missing premises and/or
  conclusions.
• Step 7 Write the argument in standard form.

31
Two Questions in order to Recognize Arguments

• First question what point is the author or
  speaker trying to make?
• This identifies the potential conclusion.
• Second question what support (or intended
  support) has the author or speaker provided for
  that claim?
• This identifies the potential premises.