Chapter 2
Identifying Premises and
Conclusions
This tutorial will give you practice in
distinguishing premises from
conclusions.
1.
2.
3.
No one under eighteen-years-old can vote.
Jen is under eighteen-years-old.
Therefore, Jen cannot vote.
Arguments are composed of one or more premises and a
conclusion. Premises are statements offered as reasons
for accepting another statement. A conclusion is a
statement supported by reasons.
In this example, statements 1 and 2 are premises, and
statement 3 is the conclusion.
Distinguishing premises from conclusions is a skill that requires
both practice and close attention to the nuances of language.
Here are some tips that will help you separate premises from
conclusions:
1.
Look for premise indicators--words like because, since, for, and
given that--that provide clues when premises are being offered.
2.
Look for conclusion indicators--words like therefore, thus, hence,
and so--that provide clues when conclusion indicators are being
offered.
3. If the passage contains no indicator words, try these two strategies:
a. Ask yourself, "What claim is the writer or speaker trying to prove?"
That claim will be the conclusion.
b. Try putting the word "therefore" before each of the
statements in turn. The statement it fits best will be the conclusion.
A good society treasures its dissidents and mavericks
because it needs the creative thinking that produces new
hypotheses, expanded means, a larger set of alternatives,
and, in general, the vigorous conversation induced by
fresh ideas. (Nel Noddings, Philosophy of Education, 1995)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion in this argument.
A good society treasures its dissidents and mavericks
because it needs the creative thinking that produces new
hypotheses, expanded means, a larger set of alternatives,
and, in general, the vigorous conversation induced by
fresh ideas. (Nel Noddings, Philosophy of Education, 1995)
Premise: A good society needs the creative thinking that that
produces new hypotheses, expanded means, a larger set of
alternatives, and, in general, the vigorous conversation induced
by fresh ideas.
Conclusion: A good society treasures its dissidents and
mavericks.
Notice the word because in this passage. This tips us off that a
premise is being offered.
Since in American schools every child is unique and of
equal worth with every other child, academic competition,
which subverts this egalitarian and individualist creed,
must be discouraged. (Stated but not endorsed in E.D.
Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have
Them, 1996)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion in this argument.
Since in American schools every child is unique and of
equal worth with every other child, academic competition,
which subverts this egalitarian and individualist creed,
must be discouraged. (Stated but not endorsed in E.D.
Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have
Them, 1996)
Premise 1: In American schools every child is unique and of
equal worth with every other child.
Premise 2: Academic competition subverts this egalitarian and
individualist creed.
Conclusion: Academic competition must be discouraged.
Here the premise indicator since helps us to identify the first
premise.
Make a will. Otherwise, the state will determine who gets
your stuff.
(Andrew Tobias, "Isn't It Time You Faced the Future?" 2001)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion in this argument.
Make a will. Otherwise, the state will determine who gets
your stuff.
(Andrew Tobias, "Isn't It Time You Faced the Future?" 2001)
Premise: If you don't make a will, the state will determine who
gets your stuff.
Conclusion: You ought to make a will.
The word otherwise often functions--as it does here--as premise
indicator.
Notice that both the premise and the conclusion have been
rephrased slightly. The premise has been rephrased in order to
make it a complete sentence. The conclusion has been restated
in order to make clear that it is intended as a statement rather
than as a command.
Research universities also must aggressively support
teaching. After all, a significant percentage of their
students are undergraduates, and such institutions are
clearly obligated to provide them a quality education.
Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, 1990)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion of this argument.
Research universities also must aggressively support
teaching. After all, a significant percentage of their
students are undergraduates, and such institutions are
clearly obligated to provide them a quality education.
Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, 1990)
Premise 1: A significant percentage of research universities'
students are undergraduates.
Premise 2: Such institutions are clearly obligated to provide
undergraduates with a quality education.
Conclusion: Research universities also must aggressively
support teaching.
Notice the phrase "after all." This phrase is often used as a
premise indicator.
The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for centuries and I
seriously doubt this will ever be resolved. The United
States should get out of this never-ending fight, or the
next terrorist bomb might be in Washington--and it just
might be nuclear.
(John G. Ferguson III, Letter to the Editor, USA Today, February 12, 2001)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion in this argument.
The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for centuries and I
seriously doubt this will ever be resolved. The United States
should get out of this never-ending fight, or the next terrorist
bomb might be in Washington--and it just might be nuclear.
(John G. Ferguson III, Letter to the Editor, USA Today, February 12, 2001)
•
Premise 1: The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for centuries.
•
Premise 2: There is serious doubt this will ever be resolved.
•
Premise 3: If the United States does not get out of this never-ending
fight, the next terrorist bomb might be in Washington--and it might be
nuclear.
•
Conclusion: The United States should get out of the never-ending
fight between the Jews and the Arabs.
•
In this passage, there are no indicator words to assist us, however
the form of the last sentence ("X should do Y, or else Z will happen")
is a common conclusion-premise pattern.
No one who observes people can pretend that in fact they
always seek anything like their own long-run advantage. If
this were the case only stupidity could explain how
frequently and obviously they act contrary to their own
long-run advantage. People are not that stupid!
(Charles Hartshorne and Creighton Peden, Whitehead's View of
Reality, 1981)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion in this argument.
No one who observes people can pretend that in fact they always
seek anything like their own long-run advantage. If this were the
case only stupidity could explain how frequently and obviously
they act contrary to their own long-run advantage. People are not
that stupid!
(Charles Hartshorne and Creighton Peden, Whitehead's View of
Reality, 1981)
•
•
•
•
Premise 1: If people always seek anything like their own longrun advantage, then only stupidity could explain how
frequently and obviously they act contrary to their own longrun advantage.
Premise 2: People are not that stupid.
Conclusion: No one who observes people can pretend that in
fact they always seek anything like their own long-run
advantage.
Here again there are no standard indicator words to assist us.
However, by sticking "therefore" in front of each of the three
sentences in turn, we can see that only the first sentence
makes sense as the conclusion.
Many people yearn for a return to "religiousness" to
education, so they press for laws permitting vocal prayer
in the classroom. But I cannot join them. Vocal prayer in
class dictates a consensus that does not exist in our
pluralistic society, and any prayer that is so vaguely
worded that it sounds agreeable to all is, by my limits, no
prayer at all.
(Parker J. Palmer, To Know As We Are Known: Education
as a Spiritual Journey, 1993)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion of this argument.
Many people yearn for a return to "religiousness" to education,
so they press for laws permitting vocal prayer in the classroom.
But I cannot join them. Vocal prayer in class dictates a
consensus that does not exist in our pluralistic society, and any
prayer that is so vaguely worded that it sounds agreeable to all
is, by my limits, no prayer at all.
(Parker J. Palmer, To Know As We Are Known: Education as a
Spiritual Journey, 1993)
•
Premise 1: Vocal prayer in class dictates a consensus that does not exist in our
pluralistic society.
•
Premise 2: Any prayer that is so vaguely worded that it sounds agreeable to all
is, by my limits, no prayer at all.
•
Conclusion: Although many people yearn for a return to "religiousness" to
education, and for this reason press for laws permitting vocal prayer in the
classroom, it would be a mistake to enact such laws.
•
In this argument, while it is relatively easy to identify the premises, it is tricky
to accurately state the conclusion. Notice how some creative rephrasing is
necessary in order to capture precisely the claim the writer wants to defend.
We have good reason to believe that people will exist in
the future and that they will be similar enough to us that
we can have a good idea of what their well-being requires.
Knowing this and knowing that our present actions can
influence their future well-being, it is reasonable to
conclude that future people must be given some ethical
consideration by presently living human beings. (Joseph
R. DesJardins, Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to
Environmental Philosophy, 3rd ed., 2001)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion of this argument.
We have good reason to believe that people will exist in the future and
that they will be similar enough to us that we can have a good idea of
what their well-being requires. Knowing this and knowing that our
present actions can influence their future well-being, it is reasonable to
conclude that future people must be given some ethical consideration by
presently living human beings. (Joseph R. DesJardins, Environmental
Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy, 3rd ed., 2001)
Premise 1: We have good reason to believe that people will exist in the future and
that they will be similar enough to us that we can have a good idea of what their
well-being requires.
Premise 2: We know that our present actions can influence future peoples' wellbeing.
Conclusion: Future people must be given some ethical consideration by presently
living human beings.
In this passage, the conclusion indicator "it is reasonable to conclude that" helps
us identify the conclusion.
Notice that the second premise has been restated in order to make it a complete
sentence.
With what group do I belong? I am with those who would be
pleased to be refuted if I should say anything that is not true, and
pleased to be the refuter of anyone who should say anything that
is not true--more pleased, in fact, to be refuted than to refute. I
think that's a greater good, you see, insofar as it's a greater good
to be relieved of a great evil than to relieve another of the same.
(Socrates, in Plato's Gorgias)
Identify the premise(s) and conclusion in this argument.
With what group do I belong? I am with those who would be
pleased to be refuted if I should say anything that is not true, and
pleased to be the refuter of anyone who should say anything that
is not true--more pleased, in fact, to be refuted than to refute. I
think that's a greater good, you see, insofar as it's a greater good
to be relieved of a great evil than to relieve another of the same.
(Socrates, in Plato's Gorgias)
Premise: It is a greater good to be relieved of a great evil than to
relieve another of the same.
Conclusion: It is a greater good to be refuted than to refute.
In this passage, the premise indicator "insofar as" helps us to
identify the premise.
Notice that the first two sentences aren't strictly part of the
argument. Their function, instead, is to provide background or
contextual information necessary to understand the argument.
[This is the end of the tutorial]
X