Understanding Arguments: identifying key parts
and their relationship. Now that you know that critical thinking requires you to
step back
and carefully examine claims and arguments logically, we can dig a little
deeper
into what that means. As you know, critical thinking allows you to apply reason
or logic to evaluate something you read,
hear, or see. Most often people use critical thinking to evaluate an
argument someone has made.
By thinking critically about an argument, you can analyze the argument and
conclude whether you think it's right or wrong,
strong or weak. But before you can analyze something you've heard or read,
you must first know whether it's even an argument or not.
Now this may sound obvious or easy, but as you'll see,
that's not always the case. So,
what IS an argument? First it's important to recognize that an
argument is made to address a specific problem issue,
by offering a position on the problem issue and providing reasons for that
position.
At its most basic, an argument consists of two parts:
1) one or more premises, and
2) a conclusion. These two parts must work together
in order to offer a particular stance or position on an issue or problem
and form an argument. In an argument, the premises supposedly provide the reasons
the person house for thinking the conclusion is true.
For example a student tells her instructor, "My grandmother died,
and I had to miss class to go to a funeral." The issue or problem at hand is
whether the student should be excused from class.
Now the student believes the conclusion is YES, and offers a reason -
attending her grandmother's funeral - to defend that conclusion.
That reason is the arguments PREMISE. The instructor can then evaluate whether
she has offered a good argument or not.
To "evaluate" means to do two things:
first, decide whether the premise or premises are true or accurate;
and second, determine whether the premises are logically related to the
conclusion.
In future modules, you learn more about this evaluation process.
We're going to break down the definition of an argument by focusing on four key
points:
1) the premise;
2) the conclusion; 3) the application of reason or logic;
and 4) the relationship between premises and conclusions.
Premises. When someone makes an argument,
they're offering up their position or stance on some issue at hand.
For example, imagine one of your classmates is currently taking a course
you were thinking signing up for next semester. When you ask if you should sign
up, he says,
"Oh no, no way! Do not take BUS 1050!"
In order to convince you that this is true, that you should not take BUS 1050
he'll give you one or more reasons. He might tell you that the professor is
boring,
or that the readings are too hard, or that there's not enough time for
discussion.
The claims about the class are the premises of the argument.
They provide the foundation on which the conclusion - that you should not take the
class -
rests. In order to analyze an argument,
one thing you must do is identify the premises.
Ask yourself, "what reasons or evidence did this person give for their
conclusion?"
or, "Why does the author think that this is the answer?"
Sometimes the person making the argument will make it easier on you
by using keywords or phrases that indicator reason: "because",
"due to", "as shown by", "given that",
and so on. Be aware of such words, but don't rely on them -
they won't always appear in an argument. In addition,
there are sometimes unstated or implied premises - the person making the argument
maybe leave out a fact or reason, assuming that you already know that fact
or that it'll be taken for granted.
You will learn more about these unstated promises later.
Once you've identified the premises,
you will then need to evaluate their truth or strength; we'll talk more
about how to do this in later modules.
Conclusions. Now let's make sure we're clear on what the conclusion of an
argument is.
In this context, the term "conclusion" is being used in a different way
than you might be familiar with. When we talk about the conclusion of an argument,
we do not mean a summary or overall review what's been said
(as might be met when your professor asks that your paper include a conclusion
paragraph.)
Rather the conclusion of an argument is what follows from the claims being made;
it is the final statement of the position someone is taking
on an issue or question. Imagine you're having a discussion with your supervisor
at work. The supervisor says,
"I'm thinking we should have a staff retreat." Now, thinking about how things
been around the office, you reply,
"Yeah, it seems like some people aren't getting along very well.
And we have these really really important projects that aren't getting done because
no one is working on them."
You also believe that staff members are not communicating very well with each
other.
Having considered a number premises related to the state have office affairs,
you then offer the conclusion that, yes, we should have a staff retreat.
Note that your supervisor can then critically examine your argument,
evaluating both the premises and the conclusion. He may agree that your
premises are true,
but that does not mean that he necessarily needs to agree with your
conclusion.
He may decide that your premises do not provide enough
reason for having a staff retreat (and losing time in productivity
by taking a day away from regular tasks), or that there's a better way to resolve
the office tensions that you've identified.
Reason. In making an argument, an
individual relies on reason or logic to defend a particular conclusion,
rather than on emotion, intuition, or instinct
For example, an employees who tells his boss,
"Please give me a raise. I really need to make more money so I can buy a bigger
house."
is trying to appeal to his bosses emotions, hoping the boss might feel bad for
him.
Whether he needs a bigger house or not the employee is not really offering an
argument as to why he should get a raise.
He simply trying to persuade his boss to agree with his desire.
In order to actually make an argument,
the employee could align his workplace accomplishments, projects he has initiated,
deadlines he's met, and other concrete reasons that could justify a raise.
Now consider the defense attorney who, pointing to his clean-cut, well-dressed
client asks the jury,
"Tell me, does my client look like he's capable of murder?"
Is this an argument? Has the attorney offered the jury
any actual reasons by which to draw the conclusion that he would like them to
draw -
that no of course he's not capable of that? Certainly the person paying the attorney
likely hopes he has more to offer the jury by way of reasoned argument
and evidence to defend the not-guilty conclusion. Relating Premises to
Conclusions.
Remember the use of the term "supposedly" in our definition
(a premise SUPPOSEDLY provides a reason for thinking the conclusion is true):
when someone makes an argument, they believe that the premises they offer
justify or support the conclusion they've drawn. However,
the point of applying critical thinking to arguments is to evaluate whether that
is in fact the case.
DOES that premise really lead to the conclusion?
If the argument a good one the answer is gonna be YES.
If it's a weak argument the answer might be NO.
Remember when you asked your classmate about taking a certain class?
Imagine if instead about telling you what the class was like he says,
"Oh no! Do not take that class. I hate that class.
It's so early in the morning, and I am not a morning person."
In order to support his conclusion that you should not take the class,
the premises are that a) the class meets early in the morning
and b) he does not like mornings. Now, did those promises really tell YOU
whether YOU should take that class? What is your classmate's dislike mornings have
to do with you?
So when you analyze an argument you must not only evaluate the premises and
conclusions separately,
but you need to consider the relationship between them.
If the premises do not directly address the question at hand -
in this case, should I take this class - then they do not really offer support
for whatever conclusion is made,
and therefore you have a weak argument. The Missing Link:
Unstated Assumptions. Sometimes,
it can be difficult to tell whether someone's making an argument -
or whether the argument the making is a good one - because pieces of the puzzle
are missing. People do not
always explain their arguments very well. Have you ever heard the phrase
"it goes without saying"? That "it"
is an unstated assumption - a premise that, for some reason,
is simply assumed rather than explicitly stated.
For example, consider the following argument: "It's not required for you to do
an internship.
You would rather spend your summer at the beach, so don't do an internship."
The unstated assumption here that "goes without saying,"
is that people should only do what they want to do - you want to spend the summer
at the beach, therefore you should do that instead of getting an internship.
In the example discussed earlier, when the lawyer asked the jury if they really
believed his clean-cut,
respectable client was capable of murder, he made the unstated assumption that
people who LOOK respectable
do not commit murder. The problem with unstated assumptions is not that they
are (or are not true). The problem is
if they remain hidden, then your analysis of an argument is
incomplete. Not all unstated assumptions will be true or accurate or reasonable.
If you do not bring them out of hiding - by figuring out when some piece of an
argument is missing
and filling in that gap - then we may miss a weakness or error in reasoning
that can undermine the argument's conclusion. If you're the one making the
argument,
if you leave some premise unstated, someone else may fill in the gap for you,
and they may not fill it with the same reason you would have used!
In this case you're allowing someone else to make your argument for you -
to put words in your mouth that might not belong there. In both assessing
and making arguments, you should always be alert to what is not being stated.