SELECCIÓN DE PROGRAMAS Y USO DEL APARATO

2.4

Before an argument can be reconstructed and/ or evaluated it must first be established that it is an argument. This can be harder than it sounds, especially if the argument is a poor one. In a good argument the conclusion follows from the reasons. In a bad argument it does not follow: the reasons do not justify the conclusion. It is this which makes it a bad argument. But how bad does an argument have to be before we decide that it is not an argument at all? Establishing that some piece of text is an argument may come down to deciding whether or not the author meant or intended one of the claims to be a conclusion, and the others to be reasons. Judging an author’s intention, from a text alone, is not a very exact science!

Matters are made easier if the conclusion or reasons are marked by indicators such as ‘therefore’, ‘so’, ‘since’ and ‘because’. However, these connectives have other functions in the language beside signalling argument. They occur frequently, for example, in explanations (see Chapter 4.2). Just finding two sentences joined by ‘so’ or ‘since’ does not automatically identify a reasoned argument. Think of the words of the rock ballad:

But since you’ve been gone I can breathe for the first time . . .

There is no argument here. ‘Since’ in the song means ‘ever since’, which is different from the meaning it has in front of a premise.

Besides, as stated in Chapter 2.3, there are plenty of examples of natural-language arguments which contain no connectives. An argument may just be conveyed by a pair or sequence of sentences. Obviously not every sequence of sentences is an argument. All too

often it is left to the reader to interpret how a text is best understood.

For example, it is not an argument to say: [1] Photographs from space show the

Earth’s surface as curved. The curvature does not show when a photograph is taken from ground level.

How we can establish that [1] is not an argument is by asking if either of the two claims supports the other, or states a reason for accepting the other. Despite what was said just now about indicators, a partial test can be applied by inserting ‘therefore’ or ‘so’ between the sentences and asking: Does it make sense? If it doesn’t make sense, then there is no argument – although the converse does not necessarily apply. Here is the test applied to [1]:

[1a] Photographs from space show the Earth’s surface as curved. Therefore the curvature does not show when a photograph is taken from ground level. [1b] The curvature does not show when a

photograph is taken from ground level, so photographs from space show the Earth’s surface as curved.

Neither of these makes sense. So [1] is not an argument.

The same test can be applied to the next example, only as there are more claims there will be more rearrangements to try out.

[2] Completed tax forms and payments must be received by 31 July. Late payment may result in a fine not exceeding $100. Your payment did not reach the tax office until 12 August.

There are three possible candidates for the conclusion of [2], if there is one. So, applying the test, we have these possibilities:

[2a] Completed tax forms and payments must be received by 31 July. Late payment may result in a fine not exceeding $100. Therefore your payment did not reach the tax office until 12 August.

[2b] Late payment may result in a fine not exceeding $100. Your payment did not reach the tax office until 12 August. So completed tax forms and payments must be received by 31 July. [2c] Completed tax forms and payments

must be received by 31 July. Your payment did not reach the tax office until 12 August. Therefore late payment may result in a fine not exceeding $100. In each rearrangement the attempt to use an argument indicator sounds unnatural, which indicates that none of the sentences is the kind of claim that could follow from the others in the way that a conclusion follows from reasons.

Commentary

[3] is an argument. The conclusion, which is at the end, is a recommendation. This also is a useful clue: recommendations are often accompanied by reasons. Here there are two: the time of the train’s departure and the possibility of a 40-minute journey to the station. If they are both true, then clearly they justify the conclusion.

[4] is also an argument. The conclusion is a prediction that the police will (definitely) suspect Raisa, firstly because she is the only key-holder, and secondly because she was alone in the building. The argument is perhaps not quite as solid as [3]. Do police always treat people as suspects in these

circumstances? The words ‘bound to . . .’ make the conclusion a very strong claim. Even if both premises are true, there may be other Using the ‘therefore/so’ test, and the

definition of an argument as reasons and a conclusion, decide which of the following could be interpreted as arguments.

For those that are arguments, identify the conclusion and note what kind of claim it is.

Lastly, discuss how well supported the conclusion is, given the reasons.

[3] The Tokyo train leaves at 4.24. It can take up to 40 minutes to get to the station if the traffic is bad. We should leave for the station by 3.40. [4] Raisa is the only person with a key to the safe. The police are bound to treat her as a suspect. The money

Activity

went missing when she was in the building on her own.

[5] You are likely to get a fine. Completed tax forms and

payments must be received by 31 July and people who miss the deadline are usually fined $100. Your payment did not reach the tax office until 12 August. [6] From the 15th century European

sailors reached the lands of the east by sailing west. Those who sailed on and survived eventually arrived back in Europe. When they

claimed they had sailed around the world, few people believed them. [7] There are only three possible causes

of the leak in your system: the pump could be worn, a hose could be split or one of the connections could be loose. I’ve checked the hoses and tightened all the connections, but the machine still leaks.