Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Analyzing Arguments
The task presents a brief passage in which the author makes a case for a course of
action or interprets events by presenting claims and supporting evidence. The goal of
paraphrasing should be to simplify the argument with concise statements. Putting the
arguments in your own words can help break down the arguments to its parts. So in
order to paraphrase an argument, identify the type of critical reasoning questions can
start with a conclusion followed by arguments or start with arguments followed by the
conclusion.1
The three most important and the ones we will consider here are the claim, grounds,
and warrants. The claim is what you are asserting or proposing; the grounds include
the evidence that supports your claim; and the warrant is what permits a piece of
evidence to stand in support of a given claim. Warrants are perhaps the most "slippery"
aspects of argument, in that they often comprise widely-held beliefs and assumptions
that may or may not be stated explicitly.2
1
http://www.f1gmat.com/category/gmat/paraphrasing-argument
2
https://writing-speech.dartmouth.edu/learning/materials-first-year-writers/logic-and-argument
Paraphrasing Arguments
This is the most common and the most useful technique for analysis is
paraphrase. We paraphrase an argument by setting forth its proportions in clear
language and logical order. This may require the reformulation of sentences, and
therefore great care must be taken to ensure that the paraphrase put forward
captures correctly and completely the argument that was to be analyzed.3
Diagramming Arguments
Analyzing the structure of arguments is clarified by representing the logical relations in
diagram form.
I. Arguments in logic are composed reasons being offered for a conclusion. (The
use of the term "argument" in logic does not carry the everyday connotation of
a quarrel in everyday discourse.
III. There are three main ways of judging the presence of an argument:
A. The author or writer explicitly states explicitly lists the reasons, evidence,
justification, rationale, or proof of a statement.
Example:
(1) I conclude the dinosaurs probably had to cope with cancer. These are
my reasons: (2) a beautiful bone found in Colorado filled with agate has a
hole in its center, (3) the outer layer was eroded all the way through, and
(4) this appearance closely matches metastatic bone tumors in humans.
3
Copi, Cohen, Macmahon, Introduction to Logic, Pearson New International Edition, p 36
Example:
(1) Since the solution turned red when the indicator was added, (2) I
conclude it is acidic, inasmuch as acidic substances react with this
indicator to form a red color.
Example:
(1) The types of sentences you use are quite varied. (2) I've noticed that
your essays are quite sophisticated. (3) You have been learning much
more about sentence structure.
Example:
(1) John didn't get much sleep last night. (2) He has dark circles
Example:
for
since
as
because
for the reason
follows from
after all
in light of the fact
*for the reason
Example Argument:
thus
therefore
consequently
hence
so
it follows that
proves that
indicates that
*accordingly
implies that
*for this reason
and
but
yet
however
moreover
in addition
nevertheless
(and also the semicolon ";")
Examples:
(1) Some students absent today are unprepared for this test,
since (2) the law of averages dictates that only 10% of
students are absent due to illness, and (3) more than 10%
are absent.
One aspect of the complexity of argumentation is that real-life arguments are often
connected. For instance, the conclusion of one argument may be the premise of
another, so a series of arguments may be linked together like a chain. What links
chain arguments together are statements that are the conclusion of one argument
in the chain and the premise of the next.
Example: “The fact is that between the time the [dauphin’s] doll was placed on the
exhibit platform and the time the theft was discovered no one and no thing touched
it. Therefore between the time the doll was placed on the platform and the time the
4
Copi, Cohen, Macmahon, Introduction to Logic Pearson New International Edition p 56
theft was discovered the dauphin [doll] could not have been stolen. It follows, simply
and inevitably, that the dauphin [doll] must have been stolen outside that period.”5
a. “The fact is that between the time the doll was placed on the exhibit platform and
the time the theft was discovered no one and no thing touched it.”
b. “Between the time the doll was placed on the platform and the time the theft was
discovered the dauphin could not have been stolen.”
2. There are two conclusion indicators, “therefore” and “it follows … that.” This
means that there are two arguments in the passage. Also, the placement of the
indicators shows that statements b and c are conclusions. Statement a is not
marked, so it must be a premise if it is a part of either argument.
3. That the first statement is a premise can be seen by the fact that the argument
from a to b makes sense: If no one touched the doll during that time period, then it
could not have been stolen then.
4. Statement b is also a premise by the fact that the argument from b to c makes
sense: If the doll could not have been stolen in that time period, then it must have
been stolen at some other time.
This passage is an example of the simplest and most common types of complex
argument—that is, one in which two single-premised arguments are connected in a
chain. Clearly, this process of linking together arguments in a chain can be extended
as far as you please, so chain arguments can be made up of three or more simple
arguments.6
(1) If students were environmentally aware, they would object to the endangering
of any species of animal. (2) The well-known Greenwood white squirrel has become
endangered (3) as it has disappeared from the Lander Campus (4) because the
5
Ellery Queen, The Dauphin’s Doll
6
https://gohighbrow.com/chain-arguments/
building of the library destroyed its native habitat. (5) No Lander students
objected. (6) Thus, Lander students are not environmentally aware.
o The premise indicators suggest that (2) is a sub conclusion of (3) since
the indicator "as" connects them, and (3), in turn, is a sub conclusion of
(4) since the indicator "because" connects those two statements.
o Statement (6) is the final conclusion since it has the conclusion indicator
"thus" and the import of the paragraph indicates that this statement is
the main point of the argument.
If A then O
Not O
If A then O
Not O
_____________
Not A which is the same statement as (6).
o Hence the whole argument can now be pieced together as:
Problems in Reasoning
One type of reasoning problem is the common Brain Teaser in which, using only the
clues provided, we must determine the names or other facts about certain specified
characters.8
Brain Teaser is a form of puzzle that requires thought to solve. It often requires
thinking in unconventional ways with given constraints in mind; sometimes it also
involves lateral thinking. Logic puzzles and riddles are specific types of brain teasers.
RETROGRADE ANALYSIS
Reasoning that seeks to explain how things must have developed from what went
before. However, problems in retrograde analysis are often devised for amusement.
The chessboard is the setting for the most famous of all problems in retrograde
analysis; the rules of chess provide the needed theoretical context.9
Prof. Raymond Smullyan, in his book, “The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes”
demonstrated how given a chess position, that at first glance looks impossible, we may
analyze all possible previous moves to understand how we got here. First, you must
ask yourself what the last move was. And in order to answer that question correctly,
you must determine what the previous move was before the last one, etc. Smullyan
calls this type of reverse engineering “retrograde analysis” (or briefly “retro-analysis“)
where you think backward from the position, rather than forward.
7
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/diagram.html
8
Copi, Cohen, Macmahon, Introduction to Logic, Pearson New International Edition p 58
9
Copi, Cohen, Macmahon, Introduction to Logic. Pearson New International Edition p 59