Which arguments in the standard form are there? - Chapter 5

The purpose of argument reconstruction is to produce a clear and explicit version of the original argument of the writer / speaker. The argument will ultimately be in standard form.

Unnecessary material

The first step in reconstructing an argument is to remove unnecessary material, or everything that does not play an argumentative role. These can be things that the speaker / writer has aimed for, for example, emphasis or rhetorical elements. Below some examples of unnecessary material:

1. Internship setting: pointing the reader to the material being discussed and emphasizing the seriousness and importance of the problem.
2. Dressing the conclusion: the conclusion is often drawn up in an attractive or convincing way. However, this must be converted into one simple proposition.
3. Phrases such as "it is clear that" or "as everyone knows": these must always be removed from reconstructed arguments.
4. Words such as "because", "therefore" and "therefore": these are superfluous in the standard form and must therefore be removed.

Remove rhetoric

To clarify the argument, rhetorical elements must be removed. A metaphor is a form of imagery, such as: "The director has loose hands". This sentence must be converted into a reconstructed argument, for example: "The director is violent". An expressive epithet is a term for a person, group, or other entity that is used only for rhetorical purposes, such as: "The manipulative tyrant," which in a reconstructed argument should simply become "The Director." Street language ( slang ) and rhetorical questions must also be avoided in the reconstructed argument.

Logical streamlining

In chapter 3 we saw that logical relationships can be used in different ways. For example, "A unless B" means the same as "If not B, then A". When reconstructing arguments, we must try to formulate logical relationships in the simplest, clearest and best-known manner possible. This is often necessary for texts in which the logical relationships are represented in a complicated, confused or hidden way. There are two rules of thumb for logical streamlining:

1. Where applicable, rewrite sentences as either conditional or disjunctive sentences in one of the following forms:

2. Rewrite generalizations in one of the following forms, where ___ is entered by "all", "most", "some", "note", "almost all", etc.

Implicit and explicit

Essential propositions are often omitted from the arguments that have been set, or implicitly stated. These propositions must be made explicit during the reconstruction . You do this by putting all the intentions of the writer / speaker in the argument, creating a deductively valid or inductively powerful argument. For example, if someone says: “Is Mrs. Jansen highly educated? Of course! Did you not know that she is a successful politician? ”, Could you reconstruct this as:

P1) Mrs. Jansen is a successful politician

C1) Mrs. Jansen is highly educated

However, the argument is not deductively valid or inductively powerful; a premise is missing that isn’t said and only implied. Thus. we must make this explicit, for example:

P1) Mrs. Jansen is a successful politician

P2) All successful politicians are highly educated

C) Mrs. Jansen is highly educated

Connecting premises

A premise that must be made explicit to make an argument valid is called a binding premise . Connecting premises are often omitted in everyday language, because they are supposed to be general knowledge. If someone says: “My cat will not have kittens; it has been sterilized ”, it is assumed that everyone automatically understands the connecting premises. A reconstruction would look like this:

P1) My cat has been sterilized.

P2) Cats that are sterilized cannot have a litter.

C) My cat can't have kittens.

However, it should not simply be assumed that an argument that is not deductively valid or inductively powerful would be if the intended binding premises were to be made. Sometimes the implicitly binding premise is simply not true.

Covering generalizations

View the following example:

a. If Betty is a Siamese cat, she has blue eyes.

b. All Siamese cats have blue eyes.

We can say that (b) is a comprehensive generalization of instance (a). However, we can also say: "If X is a Siamese cat, it has blue eyes." When people use conditional sentences such as these, they often do this on the basis of a comprehensive generalization. When reconstructing an argument it is important to use the covering generalization instead of the conditional proposition.

Relevance

If a proposition is not relevant to the reasoning of the conclusion, it must be omitted. For example, P2 is irrelevant in the argument below:

P1) Restaurant "The cheerful Frenchman" is usually fully booked.

P2) I went to eat once at The cheerful Frenchman.

C) The cheerful Frenchman is probably fully booked tonight.

In everyday language you would call P2, for example because you want to emphasize your knowledge about the restaurant in question. However, for the argument itself it is not relevant and must therefore be omitted from the reconstruction. In addition to the fact that P2 is not relevant, there is another reason to omit this proposition. Suppose, for example, that the person to whom you present the argument finds out that P2 is not true, then the entire argument becomes invalid (since both premises must be true). However, if you remove P2, the argument is valid.

Ambiguity and vagueness

For an explanation of ambiguity and vagueness, see Chapter 2 (How do you interpret linguistic elements and rhetorical techniques?) . Below is explained how you can deal with these concepts in reconstructing arguments.

Ambiguity

If there is ambiguity in the original argument, we must look at what the speaker / writer's most likely intention was. Then we must reconstruct the argument in such a way that there is no longer any question of ambiguity. For example, if an advertisement states that a restaurant is "the leading restaurant in Amsterdam", you can reconstruct the argument in (at least) three ways. It is possible that the restaurant serves the best food, but it is also the largest restaurant (for example McDonalds), or the most profitable restaurant. In the last two reconstructions there is really no good reason to eat at that restaurant (if you are looking for the best food).

Vagueness

Words such as "orange" or "bald" are vague in the scope that is meant (Does bald mean no hair at all or does it also count when only the top of the head doesn’t have hair anymore?) The biggest problems in reconstructing arguments, however, arise with words that are vague in their meaning. The best way to solve this is simply to omit these words from the reconstruction. Consider the following example: “The politician has shown by his preference for traditional values ​​that he is conservative. It is therefore certain that he will advocate stricter penalties for criminals. " The word "conservative" is vague and rhetorically charged, so let's omit it in the reconstruction of the argument:

P1) The politician has a preference for traditional values

P2) Most people who prefer traditional values ​​favour stricter penalties for criminals.

C) The politician will probably advocate stricter penalties for criminals.

However, it is not possible to remove all forms of vague language. This will be discussed further in the next chapter.

More about generalizations

As we saw in Chapter 2, we can distinguish between hard and soft generalizations. Because quantifiers such as "all" or "none" are often omitted, confusion can sometimes arise as to what type of generalization is meant. When reconstructing arguments, quantifiers must always be used to prevent this confusion.

The scope of an argument is about the extent of the number of cases that is meant. For example, the range of "all cows are herbivores" is wider than the range of "all black cows are herbivores". As a general rule, when reconstructing arguments, we should not use harsh generalization if it creates doubt that could be eliminated by using a narrower range. However, choosing a narrower range is not always better: the insertion of "black" adds nothing to the above arguments about cows.

Practical reasoning

Practical reasoning indicates arguments with a practical conclusion. This type of reasoning is based on two considerations. First, an outcome is specified as either desired or undesirable. Second, it contains a proposition that says one of the following things:

1. If action X is executed, the result will be the result.
2. If action X is executed, the result will not be the result.
3. If action X is not implemented, the result will not be the result.
4. If action X is not executed, the result will be the result.

So there are eight different types of arguments about a relationship between action and result. When assessing such arguments, however, a number of other factors must also be taken into account, such as whether the costs outweigh the benefits or there is another solution that involves fewer costs but the same benefits (i.e. whether it is the most efficient solution).

Balancing costs, benefits and opportunities

As we just saw, practical reasoning involves weighing costs and benefits. For example, if you want to make a cup of tea, you decide that the costs (the effort to make tea) are outweighed by the benefits (drinking a cup of tea). In this case, however, you are almost certain that making tea will actually work. Opportunities therefore play no role in this. But suppose you are invited to a party while there is a chance that it will rain. If the costs of getting wet are the same as the benefits of going to the party, you also have to include the chance that it will or will not rain in your decision. In that case you can say that you should not go to the party unless the chance that it will rain is less than half the chance that it will not rain (so 1/3).

To calculate the expected value of an action, multiply the probability of that outcome by its value (the costs or benefits) for each possible outcome. Then you add all the calculations together to get the expected value. The action that yields the highest expected value is then the action that you must take (for a formula, see p.165 of the book). However, it is controversial to say that the rationality of all actions depends on their expected value; moral rules and ethics also play a role in many cases.

Statements as conclusions

As we saw in Chapter 1 (What are basic concepts about arguments?) ,we must distinguish arguments from explanations. Many arguments, however, have a statement as a conclusion. The purpose of the argument is that this and that is the cause of a fact or event. All these types of arguments start with an accepted fact, after which it is explained what caused that fact. An example of a common pattern of these types of arguments is:

If other possible causes cannot be completely excluded, we use words such as "probably not" and "almost always" in the premises, and "probably" in the conclusion.

Causal generalizations

When looking at causal relationships, correlation should not be confused with cause . For example, if you say that a high number of bicycles in a city is correlated with air pollution, it would not be correct to say that the high number of bicycles causes air pollution. In many such cases, there is an underlying factor that causes both states (in this case a high population). To establish a causal relationship, all other possible causes of an observation must be excluded.

Discount

If an argument contains conditional propositions, it often happens that we have to use a proposition twice in the reconstruction. However, we can shorten this proposition by using the number (P1, P2, etc.) of the proposition, as in the example below.

P1) It is warm outside

P2) Like (P1), many people wear shorts

C) Many people wear shorts