Weston, Introduction

1
Weston, Introduction

• Weston defines an argument as a set of reasons
  or evidence in support of a conclusion
• There is no mechanical method for determining
  what are the premise(s) or conclusion(s).
  However, there are some helpful hints
• (1) Premise/ Conclusion Indicators
• Sometimes referred to as logical indicators

2
Premise Indicators

• Since on the grounds that
• Because indicates that
• For as indicated by
• Follows from may be inferred from
• As shown by may be derived from
• Given that may be deduced from

3
Conclusion Indicators

• Then shows that
• It follows that indicates that
• It can be inferred that means that
• We can conclude that in conclusion
• Accordingly demonstrates that
• We can infer that suggests that

4
Indicators

• Often these terms are used to indicate premises
  and conclusions but not always
• Consider the word since. Often it is a logical
  indicator introducing a premise.
• 1. Since the world has an intricate complex
  design, there must be a designer God.
• But not always
• 2. Since 1945 there have been many wars in
  different parts of the world.

5
Indicators

• The word since in 2 is not a logical indicator.
  It is not introducing a premise. Rather it has
  a temporal sense.
• The same can be said for
• Thus (He spoke thus)
• So (Led Zeppelin is so 1970s)
• However, as a rule of thumb such indicators can
  be helpful

6
Hints

• (2) What is the main point of the passage? What
  is it that you are trying to be persuaded of?
  This will be the arguments conclusion.
• This definition of Westons is straightforward
  enough. However, recognizing arguments can be
  tricky business.
• The biggest grey area here is distinguishing
  arguments from explanations. An explanation by
  virtue of being an explanation can easily be
  interpreted as giving reasons or evidence in .

7
Recognizing Arguments

• Support of a conclusion. However, what an author
  is doing is explaining something not arguing for
  it. For example, a scientist may be explaining
  how force mass x acceleration without arguing
  for it.
• And then there are times when a passage is
  written such that it appears to be merely giving
  an explanation but is really arguing for a
  position.
• For example, to borrow from Weston, a person may
  be writing an article explaining the merits

8
Recognizing Arguments

• .and demerits of a voucher system for school
  choice. And yet in reading such an explanation
  in the manner in which it is written, we are led
  to a definite conclusion such a system should
  be adopted (or not)
• Other times an author may well be explaining the
  merits and demerits of the voucher system
  reporting the arguments on both sides, but not
  making any herself

9
Recognizing Arguments

• Other times a passage can serve as both an
  explanation and an argument.
• So, how do we distinguish the two. Once again,
  there is no mechanical method. However, allow me
  to present some useful hints
• 1. Begin with your intuitions. On a natural
  reading of the text do you get the sense of a
  argument or explanation or both.
• 2. Does the text attempt to persuade you of
  something? Does it have persuasive force?

10
Recognizing Arguments

• Arguments are written to attempt to persuade you
  of something its conclusion.
• They attempt to establish the truth of a
  conclusion.
• 3. Is the truth value of a statement up for
  grabs and/or controversial. We rarely argue for
  what is self-evidently true or common knowledge.
  Similarly, texts that are exclusively
  explanations, that which is being explained is
  assumed true and/or already established

11
Recognizing Arguments

• Newton may have had to argue that Fma and in
  his day such texts would have been both an
  argument and an explanation however, today a
  scientist normally explains the mechanics behind
  such an equation.
• 4. Do the reasons work as reasons. If the
  reasons give little or no support for the
  conclusion, if they are only tenuously connected
  with the conclusion, then chances are it is not
  an argument

12
Recognizing Arguments

• Sometimes we are presented with bad arguments so
  this hint is not foolproof. However, in the
  absence of other evidence, if a text works nicely
  as an explanation but only poorly as an argument,
  then charitably we interpret the author as giving
  an explanation rather than a poor argument.
• Lets put these hints to work.
• Margaret Atwood is a good writer because she
  read widely as a child Argument? Explanation?
  Both?

13
Recognizing Arguments

• This works nicely as an explanation of why she is
  a good writer. However,
• 1. There is no reason or evidence given that MA
  is in fact a good writer. Therefore, - hint 4
  instead of attributing a bad argument to the
  author, we opt for an explanation.
• 2. There is no sense that the truth value of MA
  is a good writer is up for grabs. Instead,
  this text seems to assume it. Therefore hint 3
  it is an explanation

14
Recognizing Arguments

• 3. It doesnt appear that we are trying to be
  persuaded of anything hint 2.
• 4. Just reading the text without thinking too
  much on a natural reading it seems to be
  simply explaining how MA became a good writer
  not arguing for it.
• Lets apply our hints to Jill studied hard all
  term. Consequently, she got good marks.
  Argument? Explanation? Both?

15
Recognizing Arguments

• Be careful of the word because. Sometimes it
  is used as a premise indicator. Other times it
  serves as a causal explanation. Here our hints
  become useful.
• Consider
• 3. Jane was late because she missed her train
• Argument? Explanation? Both?

16
Recognizing Arguments

• Contrast
• 4. Jane must have been late because she missed
  her train.
• Now we have an argument. How so?
• Consider the force of the phrase must have
  been. This suggests
• 1. There is an attempt to persuade us of
  something the mark of an argument.
• 2. That the truth value of Jane being late is
  up for grabs and not assumed.

17
Recognizing Arguments

• Statement 3 above lacks both (1) and (2).
  Therefore, 4 is an argument while 3 is not
• Lets have some practice.

18
Weston, Chapter One Composing a short argument

• Westons Rules
• R1. Distinguish premises and conclusions.
• R2. Present you ideas in a natural order. Either
  conclusion first followed by your
  reason(s)/premise(s) or the premise(s) /reason(s)
  first followed by the conclusion
• Occasionally one will find a conclusion in the
  middle of a text with a reason initially given in
  support of the conclusion and then a further
  reason following.

19
Westons Rules

• R3. Start from reliable premises
• R4. Be concrete and concise.
• I would add here avoid overly technical language
  where possible. Be simple.
• R5. Avoid loaded language
• Emotional appeals can be useful i.e., showing
  pictures of famine stricken victims to wake us up
  to do something. And similarly, in a political
  context where the agenda is not only that of
  putting forward arguments but also of rallying.

20
Westons Rules

• .the troops. However, in an academic and
  philosophical context, allow the strength of your
  position to be derived from the reasons given,
  basic principles and evidence presented be
  dispassionate or at least, passionately argue for
  a position without manipulative emotive terms.
• The power of language
• Two polls were conducted in the US both with a
  large random population sample and
  methodologically identical

21
Westons Rules

• Q1 Should a large portion of the money in the
  coming surplus this was during Clintons
  presidency be used for a tax cut, or should it
  be used to fund new government programs?
• 60 percent tax cut
• 25 percent new programs
• Q2 Should a large portion of the money in the
  coming surplus be used for a tax cut, or should
  it be spent on programs for education, the
  environment, health care, crime fighting and
  military defense?

22
Westons Rules

• 22 percent tax cut
• 69 percent new programs
• Obviously, in the States the word government is
  a loaded term
• Canadian example
• The federal Liberals balanced the budget without
  increasing taxes by cutting transfer payments
  to the provinces. this is how it was actually
  advertised. Hooray! How painless

23
Westons Rules

• The federal Liberals balanced the budget without
  increasing taxes by cutting healthcare,
  education, social housing and assistance, and
  increasing student debt.
• ? Are we excited?
• R6. Use Consistent terms.
• Though occasionally the prose may not be as
  elegant, use the same terms throughout rather
  than synonymous expressions what you lose in
  elegance you gain in argumentative force.

24
Westons Rules

• R7. Stick to one meaning of the Term
• Fallacy of Equivocation when you change the
  meaning of the term and /or confuse/play off
  several distinct meanings of a term you are
  equivocating.
• Example, She is a bad person. Therefore, she
  is a bad journalist.
• Westons Example equal

25
Chapter Two Arguments by example

• R8. Give more than one example
• The more examples you give, the stronger your
  argument especially if what you are arguing for
  is a generalization
• Related fallacy Hasty generalization or as
  Weston calls it generalizing from incomplete
  information
• Example, This GM is a lemon. Therefore, all GMs
  or GMs generally speaking, are lemons

26
Westons Rules

• However, it is also a fallacy, a point that
  Weston forgot to mention, to argue from a
  generalization to a particular instance
• Example GMs generally make good and reliable
  cars. Therefore, we can be sure that this GM is
  a good and reliable car.
• R9. Use representative examples
• If you poll only the wealthy, you may not have an
  accurate view of societal views. Make sure that
  your examples are diverse enough and relevant

27
Westons Rules

• to the conclusion drawn.
• R10. Background information is crucial.
• Examples, Twelve ships disappeared in the
  Bermuda Triangle
• Out of how many? How does this compare to other
  similar coastal areas?
• Hes advocating that the minimum wage be
  increased by fifty percent! Absurd, hardly
  anyone gets a fifty percent wage increase.

28
Westons Rules

• What if the minimum wage hasnt been increased in
  years? What if the minimum wage is no longer a
  minimum wage but rather a poverty wage?
• Include supporting background information.
• R11. Consider Counterexamples
• Westons example Wars, in general, are caused
  by the desire for territorial domination

29
Chapter Three Arguments by Analogy

• How do such arguments work?
• They take a case/situation in which our position
  is clear and certain called the analogue,
  applies this situation to a controversial case in
  which our position may not be so definite and
  claims, or argues, that the controversial case is
  just like in all relevant respects the analogue.
  Therefore, we should take the same position with
  respect to the controversial case.

30
Arguments by Analogy

• Argumentative power of analogical arguments
  logical consistency. If we adopt a position in
  situation A and situation B is just like A, then
  logical consistency demands that we adopt the
  same position to B.
• Example
• 1. There is no moral difference between letting
  a child drown when we could have saved her and
  killing that child.

31
Arguments by Analogy

• Therefore,
• 2. There is no moral difference between letting
  someone die through the with-holding of medical
  treatment in extreme circumstances where such
  treatment is no longer beneficial (passive
  euthanasia though calling it that is sometimes
  debated) and killing that person in those same
  circumstances (active euthanasia)
• 3. Most religious leaders, moral authorities and
  the populace at large support passive euthanasia.

32
Arguments by Analogy

• 4. Passive euthanasia is legal.
• Therefore,
• 5. Most religious leaders, moral authorities and
  the populace at large should support active
  euthanasia.
• 6. Active euthanasia should be legal.
• Note the complexity of the above argument how
  arguments can contain sub-arguments.

33
Arguments by Analogy

• We agree with premise one our analogue. It is
  thus argued by analogy that we should agree with
  the first conclusion.
• R12. Analogy requires a relevantly similar
  example.
• Therefore, to argue against an analogical
  argument, we need to show that the two cases are
  not relevantly similar but rather there exists a
  relevant difference or disanalogy between the two.

34
Arguments by Analogy

• Can we find one in the above argument?
• Or how about this one?
• 1. Jack stole six hundred dollars and received a
  seven month prison term.
• 2. Jill stole six hundred dollars.
• Therefore,
• 3. Jill should receive a seven month prison
  term.
• Could there be any relevant dissimilarities?