Argument Strategies : Part 1

 Argument: A series of propositions/premises leading to a conclusion  The premises are meant to give support to the conclusion.

 These are non-risky arguments  They are non-risky because if the premise are true, then the conclusion must be true  An example:  If Aristotle is a man, then Aristotle is mortal.  Aristotle is a man  Therefore, Aristotle is mortal

 We classify these arguments in two different ways:  Valid vs. Invalid  Sound vs. Unsound  Valid: An argument is valid if it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.  Sound: An argument is sound if it is valid and all the premises are true.

 Valid or Invalid?:  If its raining outside then the streets will be wet  The streets are wet  Therefore it is raining outside  How could we make a valid argument out of this?

 Invalid!  If it raining outside then the streets will be wet  The streets are wet  Therefore it is raining outside  How could we make a valid argument out of this?

 These are risky arguments  They are risky because the conclusion doesn’t follow necessarily even if the premises are true.  Therefore, all inductive arguments are invalid!  Again, this means that no matter how good/true/convincing the premises, the conclusion could be false.

 An example:  The sun has come up everyday since I’ve been born  The sun will come up tomorrow  Another example:  Most philosophers go to philosophy conferences  Alvin is a philosopher  Alvin goes to philosophy conferences

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS  Non-risky  If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.  Used largely in math  Also frequently used (along with inductive arguments) in philosophy and theology. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS  Risky!  The conclusion isn’t necessarily true even when the premises are.  Used a lot in contemporary science.

 Arguing this way appeals to concrete examples to make one’s case.  Example (from the reading):  Going to baseball games is much better than watching them on television. (Conclusion) Imagine that at the ballpark you have fresh air. There is great food. You can hear the crack of the bat and feel the energy of the crowd. There is a special joy to being in the immediate. (Illustration) Now think of what it is like watching the game on television. The game is constantly interrupted by commercials. One is indoors on a sunny day. You have no chance of catching a baseball. (Illustration)

 Are these good arguments?  It depends how convincing one finds the premises. These are a type of inductive argument.  They do have one obvious weakness.  It is easy to construct a counterargument for the other side.  Can anyone give an example here?

 This strategy proceeds by telling a story which you want the other party to identify with. You then show how that story illustrates your view of the matter and counts against their view.

 An example from the reading:  One summer, a grasshopper hopped and skipped and jumped. In the meantime, there was an ant busy bringing food to his home. The grasshopper laughed at the ant and told him that he was missing the opportunity to enjoy the summer sun. Later, winter arrived and was harsh. The grasshopper could not find any food to eat as all was dead and covered with snow. He searched desperately for the ant’s home, but could not find it. Luckily, just as the grasshopper was about to starve to death, the ant found him and brought him to his home and fed him. (Narration)

 The conclusion: You must set priorities and balance work and pleasure.  Are these good arguments?

 This strategy aims at refuting the other persons argument rather than offering our own positive argument.

 Example:  Ryan: Homeschooling is always better for kids education. Homeschooled students score better on ACT tests.  Tom: That is true, they do score a point higher. But you are comparing homeschooled students to the national student population as a whole. This is an unfair comparison. They actually score lower relative to public school students who are in band and in school clubs.

 This method of arguing proceeds largely by calling into question either the truth or the relevance of the evidence someone offers for a belief.  Is this a good way to argue?  One example of when this type of argument is valuable is when you have a genuine either/or case. So suppose that either creation or evolution is true and that these are the only two options. Further, suppose you don’t have an argument for your view. Showing one is false would be a way of arguing for your position.

 This type of argumentation attempts to make one alternative sound better than another by comparing important features.  An example:  Buying American is better. It more directly helps our economy—buying from overseas factories actually hurts our economy. Plus, American workers have protections not afforded to many workers in overseas factories—foreign workers are often taken advantage of.

 This type of argumentation attempts to understand one position and use it to support another position.  So person A may try to show person B that A’s conclusion is actually supported by things that B already believes.

 Example:  Person B: Affirmative action laws are good for the country. Having them reduces discrimination and lets qualified persons get jobs who otherwise wouldn’t get a chance.  Person A: I agree we want to reduce discrimination and increase the number qualified persons on the job. But affirmative action laws are bad for the country. They will lead to less qualified people getting jobs and actually increase discrimination by way of making qualified people pay for the wrongs perpetrated by some of their ancestors.

 What are some situations in which you have seen this argumentation methods used?

 For next week:  We will be discussing arguments from analogy, arguments from classification, arguments from cause and effect, the role of definitions in argumentation, and we will discuss Toulman’s Theory of Argumentation.  Read pages and  Spend some time reviewing using the Knowledge Self-Check section.