Johanna Arnaez LLB 1D

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

TOULMIN'S ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT

One way of assessing your the validity of your argument is via a method created by
Stephen Toulmin, a philosopher and educator who committed his career to the analysis
of moral reasoning. His method is designed so that we might assess the validity of any
argument that we encounter. However, the method can also be used to determine the
validity of your own work.

Toulmin classified six important elements of argument.

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

Ways to Analyze Arguments:

1. Paraphrasing Arguments
2. Diagramming Arguments

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.

II. The presence of an argument in a passage is discovered by understanding the

author's intention of proving a statement by offering reasons or evidence.
Generally speaking, these reasons are presented as verbal reports although
they might not be initially presented in declarative sentences.

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.

B. The author uses argument indicators signifying the presence of an

argument. (Common premise and conclusion indicators are listed below
in Section IV).

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.

C. The passage under question implicitly provides an answer to the

sometimes irreverent question of "What are you trying to prove?" The
presence of an argument cannot be always known with certainty. A
charitable, conventional interpretation of the content and context of the
passage is assumed.

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.

[The conclusion is statement (3)].

I. In order to analyze simple and complex arguments, we will find it useful to

construct a diagram of the structure of the argument that details the relations
among the various premises and conclusions.

A. A conclusion of one argument can become a premise for another

argument. Thus, a statement can be the conclusion of one argument and
a premise for another argument just as a daughter in one family can
become a mother in another family.

B. The number of arguments in a passage is conventionally established by

the number of conclusions in that passage.

C. In analyzing the structure of an argument, whether simple or

complex, the all-important first step is to find the conclusion. Here are
some specific suggestions as to how to find the conclusion.

1. The conclusion might be evident from the content and context of

the paragraph structure. The sequence of sentences is often an
indication of the conclusion. Arrangement of sentences from most
general to specific is a common form of paragraph or passage; the
arrangement of sentences from specific to general is a bit less
common. Considering both cases, the conclusion is often the first
and sometimes the last sentence in a passage.

Example:
 (1) John didn't get much sleep last night. (2) He has dark circles

under his eyes. (3) He looks tired.

The conclusion is the first sentence in the passage.

2. Nevertheless, the conclusion can occur anywhere in the paragraph,

especially if the passage has not been revised for clarity. Usually, if
a conclusion is not the first or last sentence, a conclusion indicator
is present, or the last sentence is presented as an after thought
with a premise indicator. See below for lists of premise and
conclusion indicators.

Example:

(1) Studies from rats indicate that neuropeptide Y in the brain

causes carbohydrate craving, and (2) galanin causes fat craving.
(3) Hence, I conclude that food cravings are tied to brain chemicals
(4) because neuropeptide Y and galanin are brain chemicals.

3. The structure of the argument (and, of course, the conclusion, as

well) might be inferred by the following kinds of indicators.

a. Premise indicators are words which often indicate the

presence of reasons. Common premise indicators include the
following:

for
since
as
because
for the reason
follows from
after all
in light of the fact
*for the reason
 Example Argument:

(1)The graphical method for solving a system of equations is

an approximation, (2) since reading the point of intersection
depends on the accuracy with which the lines are drawn and
on the ability to interpret the coordinates of the point.

Another example argument:

(1) Questionable research practices are far more common

than previously believed, (2) after all, the Acadia Institute
found that 44 percent of students and 50 percent of faculty
from universities were aware of cases of plagiarism, falsifying

data, or racial discrimination.

b. Conclusion indicators are words which often indicate the
statement which logically follows from the reasons given.
Common conclusion indicators include the following:

thus
therefore
consequently
hence
so
it follows that
proves that
indicates that
*accordingly
implies that
*for this reason

Examples of their use in arguments:

(1) No one has directly observed a chemical bond,

(2) so scientists who try to envision such bonds must rely on
experimental clues and their own imaginations.
 (1) Math grades for teens with bipolar disorder usually drop
noticeably about one year before their condition is
diagnosed, thus(2) probably bipolar disorder involves a
deterioration of mathematical reasoning.

(1) Coal seams have been discovered in Antarctica. (2) This

means that the climate there was once warmer than it is
now. (3) Thus, either the geographical location of the
continent has shifted or the whole Earth was once warmer
than it is now.

c. Conjunctives (including conjunctive adverbs) often indicate

equal status for clauses or sentences. Noticing these
conjuncts is especially helpful for argument analysis if one of
the elements has already been identified.

Indicators of clauses of equal status include:

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.

(1) Lenses function by refracting light at their surfaces. (2)

Consequently, not only does their action depends on the
shape of the lens surfaces but also (3) it depends on the
indices of refraction of the lens material and the surrounding
medium.

COMPLEX ARGUMENTATIVE PASSAGES

Analyzing passages in which several arguments are interwoven, with some

propositions serving as both premises and sub conclusions serve only as
premises, and still others are repeated in different words can be a challenge. The
diagramming technique is certainly helpful, but there is no mechanical way to
determine whether the diagram actually does represent author’s intent accurately.
More than one diagram can be used to show the logical structure of the complex
passage. 4

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

1. There are three statements:

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.”

c. “The dauphin must have been stolen outside that period.”

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.

5. Therefore, this passage contains a chain of two arguments linked together by

statement b, which is the conclusion of the first one and the premise of the second.

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

When working with complex arguments, it is often helpful to reconstruct the

argument backwards from the conclusion. Consider the following argument.

(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.

o Intuitively, the structure of the first statement (1) together with

statement (5) is a common argument form:

If students were environmentally Aware, they would Object to the

endangering of any species of animal.
No student Objected (to the endangering of the Greenwood white
squirrel).

which can be abbreviated as follows:

If A then O
Not O

and the negation of clause O is logically equivalent to conclusion (6).

(Later in the course we will see that this argument structure is
termed modus tollens):

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