Unit 1
Introduction:
The Language of Argumentation
Contents
Unit Objectives
Introduction
Argument and Criticism
Part 1
The Critical Approach to Reading and Writing
Step 1
Specifying Topic and Main Points
Step 2
Identifying Arguments
Argument and Description
Argument and Diatribe
Argument and Explanation
Step 3
Part 2
Analyzing Arguments
Applying the Critical Approach to Writing
Step 1
Specify Topic and Main Points or Conclusion
Step 2
Identify Arguments
Step 3
Indicate Structure of Arguments
The Nonexpert in a World of Experts
Conclusion
References
Critical Thinking
1
Unit Objectives
When you have completed Unit 1, you should be able to
1. explain the purpose and value of critical thinking.
2. identify the topic and main points of any piece of discursive writing.
3. determine whether selected examples of discursive writing contain
one or more arguments.
4. specify the premises and conclusions of short arguments.
Introduction
Critical Thinking is a course about reasoning. It is designed to give you
an understanding of the difference between good reasoning and poor
reasoning, and—more importantly—to provide you with plenty of
practice, so that you can apply what you learn both in improving your
own reasoning and in evaluating the reasoning of others.
Reasoning is a kind of thinking; specifically, it is thinking about what
follows from what. We may use our reasoning powers when we decide
which lure to use for a certain kind of fish or which computer to buy,
when we try to figure out what is wrong with a car or how to design
renovations for our kitchen, when we discuss with co-workers how
large a raise in pay to ask for, or when we try to gain neighbourhood
support for a political candidate, and so on. Practical, everyday
decisions often require the exercise of our reason.
It is true, of course, that we often act without thinking consciously
about what we are doing. For example, before passing a slow-moving
vehicle on the highway, we automatically look over our shoulder to see
if a car is in the other lane. And, all too often, we just do the first thing
that comes to mind without thinking about the consequences at all.
Nevertheless, at least on occasion, we all draw conclusions from the
facts at hand. If you think to yourself that the wheels of your car must
be out of alignment because the vehicle keeps pulling to the left, or
decide that you will buy this computer rather than that because it has
all the features you need at a lower cost, then you are engaged in a
process of reasoning. What we are saying here, of course, is that
almost everyone can already reason. In fact, if someone could not
2
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
already reason, there would be nothing we could do to remedy the
situation. But if everyone can already reason, then why a course in
critical reasoning?
Our answer is simply that there is always room for improvement. Just
as most of us could improve our performance in a sport with more
practice—especially if accompanied by expert coaching—so most of us
can improve our reasoning through directed practice. This course is
designed for students who want to improve their critical abilities so
that they can present their own ideas more clearly and persuasively,
evaluate theories and arguments presented by others, and draw the
best possible conclusions from the given facts.
Progress in any field of thought requires both creative thought and
critical thought. The two complement each other, and it would be
fruitless to try to determine which is more important. In order to solve
problems (for example, how can used tires be recycled?), make
decisions (should our company move its head office to Calgary?), or
satisfy our curiosity (how was the earth formed?), we must have ideas
and suggestions to work with. Coming up with such ideas or
suggestions in the first place may, of course, require creativity. But
creativity is only part of the story. Original solutions, suggestions, and
proposals, however appealing they may be, must be tested before it is
reasonable to accept them or act upon them. Even time-tested
solutions must be reviewed periodically. In this course, we will be
dealing with the evaluation of ideas, that is, with the critical process
rather than the creative process.
Argument and Criticism
Since we will be spending much of our time discussing arguments—
how to determine what their structure is, how to classify, construct,
and evaluate them—it is important to be clear right from the start
what arguments are. The word “argument” has many meanings in
English. You may be most familiar with the use of the term to signify
“dispute,” “quarrel,” “shouting match,” “heated disagreement,” and so
on—the sort of confrontation that can lead to tears at the dinner table,
physical violence, or stony silence. Logicians—people who study the
principles of good reasoning—mean something different by the word
“argument,” and we will be following their usage of the term
throughout the course. In the logician’s sense, an argument is a group
Critical Thinking
3
of statements that consists of reasons put forward in support of an
opinion. The reasons given in support of the opinion are called
premises, and the position thus supported is called the conclusion of
the argument. Two arguments were given above, each of which has
one premise and one conclusion. The first was, “the wheels of my car
must be out of alignment because the vehicle keeps pulling to the left.”
The premise of this argument is, “my vehicle keeps pulling to the left.”
This is the reason given to support the conclusion, “the wheels of my
car are out of alignment.” Can you find the other argument? What are
its premise and conclusion?
People can and do have arguments in the sense of “verbal disputes”
without giving arguments in the sense of “reasons to back up
positions.” This may happen when people are trading insults and
accusations. Conversely, it is possible for a group of people to give
opposing arguments (in the sense of giving “reasons to support
opposing opinions”) in a spirit of co-operation, with all parties involved
being more interested in solving a problem or reaching a mutually
agreeable decision than in dominating the proceedings. It is important
to keep the two senses of “argument” distinct, and to remember that
in this course we think of argumentation as a co-operative search for
truth.
Many people have some doubts and uncertainties when they think
about approaching ideas “critically.” We shall try to clear up some of
these worries before we proceed to learn and practise logical theory
and methods.
We probably all know some people who distrust reason and never
allow themselves to be persuaded of anything by anybody. One worry
they may have is that people who want to trade arguments with them
are just trying to show them up and make them look foolish. Of course
this is possible: there are people who try to make themselves look
clever at the expense of others, and there are fault-finders who cannot
let an opportunity to pick holes in an argument go by. But relatively
few people are like this, and one would forfeit the pleasure of lively
discussion, conversation, and debate if one always refused to discuss
anything controversial for this reason. Besides, some familiarity with
logical theory and methods may make one less vulnerable to
intimidation by such individuals. There are, however, more serious
worries one may have about engaging in critical debate.
4
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
One worry some people have is that reasoning is simply rationalization.
In other words, reason is just a tool or instrument for justifying
whatever it is that someone wants to do. Let us consider this
allegation. Suppose you want to buy a certain car, one that will put a
severe strain on your budget. You might focus on all the reasons for
buying the car—ease of handling, style, and so on—and neglect the
small matter of what the purchase will mean for your budget. Similarly,
we sometimes charge scientists with interpreting the results of their
research so as to support their pet theories, ignoring or distorting
evidence that might cast doubt on their theories.
Clearly, there is such a thing as rationalization, and at least some
people do it some of the time. But is this all there is to reasoning?
Probably not, for the following reasons. Often people are genuinely in
doubt about what they want, or what they want to do, or what they
should believe, until they have thought through the arguments in
favour of and against various opinions or courses of action.
Furthermore, we sometimes change our minds about what we want
on the basis of reasoning. For example, suppose you have wanted a
certain kind of car ever since you began thinking about such things, and
now you are finally in a position to consider buying it. But you learn
that the standards of the company that manufactures the car have
slipped, and the car is no longer thought to be the best of its kind. This
knowledge may well make you change your mind and start searching
for an alternative. If people do use reason to resolve genuine doubts,
and if we do sometimes change our minds, then our reasoning cannot
always be wholly controlled by our needs, wants, or desires. The
relationship must be more complicated than that.
A closely related worry some people have is that logic is little more
than trickery—just as you can use statistics to prove anything, so you
can use logic to prove whatever you wish to prove. However, although
it is true that logic can be employed to fool the unwary, a little
familiarity with the subject will show you that there is a difference
between strong and weak arguments, and that it is possible to tell
which is which.
At this point it may seem to you that we are trying to justify critical
thinking by giving reasons—a dubious approach if this is the very
procedure that is in question. But notice that what we are actually
doing is not providing arguments in support of critical thinking, but
rather examining a few arguments people often give for distrusting
Critical Thinking
5
reason. If none of these arguments stands up to scrutiny, then at least
we have shown that there is no good reason for distrusting reason.
There is another important consideration that sometimes makes
people distrust reason. This is the fear that people who put forward
arguments to try to get other people to believe certain things are
simply trying to force, coerce, indoctrinate, or brainwash them. Better
to reject all such overtures, they think, than to allow one’s mind to be
taken over by someone else. This line of reasoning neglects the
important difference between persuasion on the one hand, and force,
coercion, indoctrination, and brainwashing on the other. When I offer
you reasons for believing something, I leave you free to accept or reject
them. Perhaps you find my argument so powerful that it is “irresistible,”
but that still does not mean that I have forced or coerced you—I may
simply have pointed out the consequence of what you already believe.
For example, I may have pointed out that if you believe that hate
literature should be prohibited, you cannot believe that there should
be no restriction on free speech. You yourself know that you can’t
accept both propositions without contradicting yourself. I haven’t
forced you.
Finally, the word “criticism” itself might be misleading because it
suggests something negative, such as fault-finding and rejection. In the
philosopher’s sense, however, approaching an idea or explanation
critically does not mean simply looking for things to criticize or refusing
to be persuaded no matter what evidence is presented. Rather, it
means testing the idea or explanation with the attitude that if it is a
good idea, then it should stand up to examination and accomplish
what it sets out to do. For example, we might ask the following
questions: Does the argument establish its conclusion, that is, does the
conclusion follow from the premises? Would the idea, if implemented,
solve a certain problem? Does the explanation really aid our
understanding? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, fine: the
idea, argument, or explanation is accepted. If all of the answers are no,
the argument must be either modified or rejected, in whole or in part.
The process is analogous to that followed by a piano tuner as she
listens to each note critically, corrects those keys that are out of tune,
and leaves the rest alone.
Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived and wrote more than two
thousand years ago, was aware of the worries people have about
approaching ideas critically. In his great dialogue, Apology, he describes
6
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
the life of his teacher, Socrates. Socrates had a life-long interest in
determining the best way to lead his life. Whenever he found a person
who claimed to know the best way to live, he would cross-question
him eagerly, only to find that he did not really know what he claimed to
know. Socrates was eventually charged with impiety, tried before an
Athenian jury, convicted, and sentenced to death. According to Plato,
the real reason he was charged was that powerful people did not like
being shown to be less clever than they thought they were. Even after
he had been condemned to death, Socrates showed great courage by
continuing to profess what he had always believed:
[T]o let no day pass without discussing goodness and all the other
subjects about which you hear me talking and examining both
myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do,
and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living.
(Plato, Apology, p. 23)
Socrates believed that logic was a tool for learning how to lead the best
possible life. We should note, however, that all tools can be harmful if
not used correctly, and logic is no exception. We must train ourselves
to be able to use this tool to our advantage. In Phaedo, a dialogue in
which Plato recounts the last day of his teacher’s life, the day before he
drank the hemlock and died, Socrates says:
No greater misfortune could happen to anyone than that of
developing a dislike for argument. Misology [hatred of argument]
and misanthropy [hatred of people] arise in just the same way.
Misanthropy is induced by believing in somebody quite uncritically.
You assume that a person is absolutely truthful and sincere and
reliable, and a little later you find that he is shoddy and unreliable.
Then the same thing happens again. After repeated disappointments
at the hands of the very people who might be supposed to be your
nearest and most intimate friends, constant irritation ends by
making you dislike everybody and suppose that there is no sincerity
to be found anywhere. . . .
The resemblance between arguments and human beings . . . [is]
that when one believes that an argument is true without reference
to the art of logic, and then a little later decides rightly or wrongly
that it is false, and the same thing happens again and again—you
know how it is, especially with those who spend their time in
arguing both sides—they end by believing that they are wiser than
Critical Thinking
7
anyone else, because they alone have discovered that there is
nothing stable or dependable either in facts or in arguments. . . .
We must not let it enter our minds that there may be no validity in
argument. On the contrary we should recognize that we ourselves
are still intellectual invalids, but that we must brace ourselves and
do our best to become healthy.
(Plato, Phaedo, pp. 71–73)
Reading Assignment
It is time now to delve into the main textbook for this course, Critical
Reasoning by J. Cederblom and D. W. Paulsen. Read Chapter 1,
“Deciding What to Believe,” pages 1–18.
Exercise 1
Go to the ‘Unit 1 Exercises’ link on the course home page for
instructions on Exercise 1.
Here are some things to keep in mind as you work through the
exercises in this course.
1. Ideally, you should write out full answers to all assigned exercises.
You may want to do this on your computer or in a notebook to
keep your answers organized. At minimum, you should think about
how you would answer each question in the assigned exercises,
and discuss with your tutor any you are unsure about. Note that,
for the most part, answers to every second question are given in
the section titled “Answers to Selected Exercises” at the back of the
textbook. Also please note the glossary on pages 353–356.
2. You will see that some of the exercise questions go beyond the
material discussed in the textbook. You should think about these
questions, remembering that there is no “right” answer to any of
them, although some answers are better than others.
3. You should get into the habit of going over at least some of your
answers with your tutor on the telephone, to make sure that you
are approaching the questions correctly. You should certainly
discuss with her or him any questions that you cannot answer at
8
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
all. Since Unit 1 forms the basis for the rest of the course, it is
particularly important that you master the techniques presented
in it.
Part 1 The Critical Approach to Reading and Writing
If you are wondering whether there are any other important reasons
that people have for distrusting reason, and whether it is possible to
reply to them, you are well on the way to developing a critical
approach to what you read. In this section we present a four-step
method for taking a critical approach to any piece of discursive writing.
(Discursive writing is a particular type of non-fiction writing, which
proceeds by reason or argument.) We will then show you how you can
improve your own discursive writing by applying this four-step method.
But first, the method.
1. The first step is to read the passage carefully and determine the
topic of the passage and the major conclusion the author is
drawing. We discuss this step in this unit. Since the special topic of
this course is the theory and practice of evaluating reasoning, we
will not be long in discussing this step. It should be clear, however,
that this step is a crucial part of the critical approach to reading and
writing: it obviously does not make sense to launch into an
evaluation of a piece of writing until we know what it is about.
2. The second step is to identify any arguments or theories present in
the passage.
3. The third step is to analyze the arguments or theories. We discuss
the identification and analysis of arguments in some detail in this
unit and the next, and we will discuss theories in Units 8 and 9.
4. The fourth step is to evaluate each argument and theory within the
passage, and, finally, the passage as a whole. Consideration of the
fourth step will engage us throughout the course.
Before we discuss each step in detail, we will present an example that
should give you some idea of how the method is applied and that will
also serve as a model of what you will be able to do after completing
the course. Please read the following article carefully.
Critical Thinking
9
Neighbourly in Netville
Far from leading to increased isolation in front of your computer,
living in a highly wired world may actually expand the number of
your relationships and social interactions, according to a study by
two University of Toronto researchers.
The study, conducted by Dr. David Wellman . . . and Keith Hampton,
looked at the residents of an experimental “wired neighbourhood”
just outside of Toronto, codenamed Netville. It is a typical suburban
neighbourhood, except that about half of the 109 homes were
equipped with free ultra-fast Internet access for a two-year period.
These residents also had access to e-mail neighbourhood discussion
groups, video phones, video mail, and various other technologies
supplied by a consortium of private and public companies. The
homes that weren’t connected became the control group . . .
The two researchers found that the wired group was far more
communicative and maintained a greater number of relationships
within the community than the non-wired group. They recognized
more of their neighbours by name and were in far more frequent
contact with them—on line, by telephone, and face to face . . .
“These results demonstrate that computer-mediated communication
enhances, rather than inhibits, other forms of communication and
relationships in all spheres of life,” says Dr. Wellman. “Not only
does e-mail help people keep in touch with friends and family who
are far away, it expands and strengthens local relationships.” The
two researchers have coined the term “glocalization” to describe
this phenomenon.
(University Affairs, December 2000, p. 8)
Now read our summary and evaluation of the passage below.
The topic of this article is the effect of living in a neighbourhood
whose homes have networked high speed Internet connections
and other advanced communication technologies. Do residents
become isolated from their neighbours? The article describes a
study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto, which
found that the opposite is the case. The researchers observed that
“wired” residents recognized more of their neighbours and were in
more frequent contact with them. This evidence led them to
conclude that social contact with neighbours may increase through
the use of communication technologies.
10
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
The results of the study are interesting, because they run counter
to what we might expect. However, the article’s description of the
study leaves too many questions unanswered to persuade readers
of its conclusion. Did the increased interaction peak as the result of
novelty, and then decrease over time? Was the observed effect the
result of a group feeling of being “chosen” for an experiment rather
than the result of the technology itself? How generalizable are the
results of the study? Would the same results be observed in other
suburban neighbourhoods, as well as in urban neighbourhoods?
These questions indicate that there may be other explanations for
the observed increase in community interactions among residents
of the wired households, and that the results may not apply to
residents of all neighbourhoods.
It is important to note here that our evaluation is not intended to show
that the study described in the article is flawed. Rather, the description
of the study leaves so many questions unanswered that we would
need more information before we decided whether to accept its
conclusions. After reading the article, we are still not in a position to
judge whether living in a wired neighbourhood increases community
interaction. If we were concerned about the issue, we would want to
read reports of the study published by its authors. It would certainly be
a mistake to accept the study’s findings on the basis of the article alone.
You may feel that the critical approach we have described is elaborate
and time consuming. Indeed, as you begin to read critically, you might
find yourself reading more slowly and think this a step in the wrong
direction. On the contrary—no prizes are given in this course for
speed-reading. Should you need to read more carefully and more
thoughtfully, the first thing that will happen is that you will find
yourself reading more slowly. If you are to become a more active and
engaged reader, this is all to the good. Once you get into the habit of
reading critically, you will begin to speed up again.
Let us now deal with each step in turn.
Step 1
Specifying Topic and Main Points
The first step in approaching any piece of non-fiction writing is the
same no matter what field and no matter what kind of writing—
polemic, film criticism, description, reporting, or anything else. We
must first determine the topic of the piece of writing in question, and
Critical Thinking
11
the major points the author is making about the topic. What is the
essay, article, or book about, and what is the author stating about the
topic? The better written the essay, article, or book, the easier it will be
to tell what its topic and main points are, because the author will be
careful to make them clear to the reader.
Note: After this section, we will speak for the next several units of the
“conclusion” of a passage rather than its “main points,” because the
main point of an argumentative passage is the author’s conclusion.
The best place to look to determine the topic of any piece of writing is
the introductory material: the first few paragraphs or opening chapter,
depending on the length of the work. You should be aware, however,
that authors will often begin with something designed primarily to
catch your attention, so you may have to read on a bit to determine
what the topic of the entire piece is. Sometimes the title also helps you
to determine the topic.
It is a good idea to get into the habit of formulating to yourself a
sentence or so identifying the topic of whatever you are reading. A
single sentence is usually sufficient. To specify the topic of a passage,
simply try to think up a short title that accurately describes the
contents of the passage. For example, the topic of an article might be
“life in a North American retirement village” or “recent arms sales to
Saudi Arabia.”
One mistake students often make in stating the topic of a passage is to
incorporate its main points into their topic sentence. For example, we
would have made this mistake if we had said that the topic of
“Neighbourly in Netville” is “increased community interactions as the
result of living in a networked neighbourhood.” Remember that the
topic statement should not state the main points or conclusion of the
passage. The topic of a passage may be compared roughly to the
subject of a sentence. Consider the sentence, “Grass is green.” Just as
the subject of a sentence tells us what the sentence is about (in this
case, grass), so the topic of a passage tells us what the passage is
about. Just as the predicate of a sentence tells us what is said about
the subject (in this case, that it is green), so the main points of the
passage are the most important things said about the topic.
Let us practise determining the topics of articles or books from their
opening paragraphs. The first example, taken from an article on
12
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
euthanasia, or mercy killing, is very straightforward, because the
author is careful to tell the reader what his topic is.
In this essay we shall discuss the major moral and legal questions
concerning euthanasia. Is euthanasia morally permissible, or is it
morally wrong? Should it be against the law, or should it be legal?
(Rachels, p. 28)
Here the topic is the major moral and legal questions about
euthanasia, as is stated in the first sentence. The second sentence
simply provides examples of the major questions.
Sometimes an author does not specifically state his or her topic, but
nevertheless makes it clear, as in the following example:
Election campaign coverage—described by one veteran of many
campaigns as the Olympics of political journalism—is journalism in
a fish bowl. Reporters face not only deadline pressures but
exhausting travel schedules, sophisticated manipulation by “spin
doctors” and high expectations from media critics, voters and their
news organizations. There is the ever-present risk of “flak” from
parties and candidates, and pressure from news managers who
expect compelling journalism in return for the high and increasing
costs of covering national elections. In this high-pressure context,
ethical and professional dilemmas are inevitable and controversies
are highly visible.
(Fletcher, p. 140)
The topic of this passage is election campaign coverage, or ethical
dilemmas in reporting on election campaigns.
Try to determine the topic of the following, more technical, example:
Neurons, or nerve cells, are the building blocks of the brain.
Although they have the same genes, the same general organization
and the same biochemical apparatus as other cells, they also have
unique features that make the brain function in a very different
way from, say, the liver. The important specializations of the
neuron include a distinctive cell shape, an outer membrane
capable of generating nerve impulses, and a unique structure, the
synapse, for transferring information from one neuron to the next.
(Stevens, p. 55)
Critical Thinking
13
Did you say that the topic is the structure and function of neurons? If
you did, you were right. However, we should stress here that there is
not one and only one right way to state the topic of a passage. The
topic may be stated more or less elegantly, in more or fewer words, or
more or less specifically, and still be accurately formulated. For
example, you might have said that the topic of the above passage is
“similarities and differences between nerve cells and other body cells”
or “physiology of nerve cells,” and if you had done so, you would have
been right.
In more imaginative or speculative writing it is sometimes more
difficult to tell what the topic is, although a good writer will always
make it clear to the careful and thoughtful reader. In this kind of
writing, you must always be prepared for the twist, the unexpected, as
in the following example:
We are told that the trouble with Modern Man is that he has been
trying to detach himself from nature. He sits in the topmost tiers of
polymer, glass, and steel, dangling his pulsing legs, surveying at a
distance the writhing life of the planet. In this scenario, Man comes
on as a stupendous lethal force, and the earth is pictured as
something delicate, like rising bubbles at the surface of a country
pond, or flights of fragile birds.
(Thomas, p. 3)
We should beware of making up our minds too soon about the topic of
this article, because the opening phrase, “We are told,” suggests that
we have been told something misleading or false. Let us look at the
next paragraph.
But it is illusion to think that there is anything fragile about the life
of the earth; surely this is the toughest membrane imaginable in
the universe, opaque to probability, impermeable to death. We are
the delicate part, transient and vulnerable as cilia. Nor is it a new
thing for man to invent an existence that he imagines to be above
the rest of life; this has been his most consistent intellectual
exertion down the millennia. As illusion, it has never worked out to
his satisfaction in the past, any more that it does today. Man is
imbedded in nature.
(Thomas, p. 3)
14
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
This looks more helpful, because it seems to be making the familiar
point that humans are mistaken if they suppose they hold a unique
position, above the rest of nature. The next paragraph helps us refine
our idea of the topic of the article.
The biologic science of recent years has been making this a more
urgent fact of life. The new, hard problem will be to cope with the
dawning, intensifying realization of just how interlocked we are.
The old, clung-to notions most of us have held about our special
lordship are being deeply undermined.
(Thomas, p. 3)
This paragraph suggests that the topic of the article is the extent to
which humans are interrelated with the rest of nature.
To determine the main points of a written work, ask yourself what the
author is saying about the topic. The article about ethical dilemmas in
election reporting goes on:
Although some basic ethical concerns are common to all forms of
journalism, some are unique to campaign coverage, or at least
more sensitive. For example, issues of fairness, balance and privacy
that would normally remain personal to individuals or groups
become politicized in the highly partisan context of election
campaigns, placing reporters under unusual pressure. The
boundary between public and private takes on an added dimension
when the private life involved is that of a public figure. Politicization
of issues can take place in other contexts but a campaign focuses
the process. For example, the appropriate role of so-called
“character issues” in election coverage has been a matter of
controversy in recent elections in both Canada and the United
States.
(Fletcher, p. 140)
This paragraph does not directly identify the main points of the article,
but it suggests that there are three main ethical dilemmas inherent in
reporting on elections: how to achieve balance; how to achieve fairness;
and how to determine which details of a public figure’s private life to
reveal. We may expect the article to discuss these issues in more detail.
Often authors make it easy to tell what their main points are by
numbering each point, listing them in an introductory paragraph, or
Critical Thinking
15
otherwise pointing them out to the reader. Lewis Thomas, the author
of “Lives of a Cell,” whose introductory paragraphs we read above,
marks each of his points “Item.” For example:
Item: A good case can be made for our nonexistence as entities.
We are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively
enriched packets of our own parts. We are shared, rented,
occupied. At the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the
oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each
shining day, are the mitochondria, and in a strict sense they are
not ours. They turn out to be little separate creatures . . . with
their own DNA and RNA quite different from ours.
(Thomas, pp. 3–4)
We might say that Thomas’s first point is that we are not the
separately and independently existing creatures we think we are.
You may be wondering whether it is important or necessary that you
paraphrase an author’s words in stating his or her topic and main
points. For the most part, you should try to state the author’s topic and
main points in your own words, being careful that your paraphrase
means the same or very close to the same as the original. If you do use
direct quotations, be sure that they are short, use quotation marks,
and identify the number of the page from which the quote was taken.
We are not going to dwell on the specification of topic and major
points. If you can tell what an article is about, you can specify its topic.
If you can tell what an author is saying about the topic, you can specify
the major points. There are no special techniques to be learned. All
that is required is close and careful reading.
Exercise 2
Go to the ‘Unit 1 Exercises’ link on the course home page for
instructions on Exercise 2.
Step 2
Identifying Arguments
How can you tell whether a passage you are reading contains an
argument? We can answer this question by applying our definition of
16
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
the word “argument”: an author is presenting an argument if she gives
reasons for believing something or for acting in a certain way.
No matter how strongly a point of view is presented, there is no
argument unless reasons are provided. For example, suppose you ask
someone who supports the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity
what she thinks about the problem of nuclear waste. She might reply:
Nuclear waste! I’m tired of hearing about it. I don’t care what they
do with it. They can shoot it off into space if they like.
In effect, the speaker has declared herself unwilling to enter into a
discussion about the problem of nuclear waste. Now suppose she had
said:
Nuclear waste! Don’t worry about it. If they can put a man on the
moon, they can take care of nuclear waste.
In this case, our speaker has presented a reason for believing that the
problem of nuclear waste can be solved: that is, modern science has
solved difficult problems in the past, so it can solve this one too.
Remember that we are concerned only with identifying arguments at
this point, so do not worry if you think that some of the arguments we
present as examples are weak or invalid—we will be coming to
standards of evaluation. The importance of approaching discourse one
step at a time cannot be stressed too strongly. There is no sense in
evaluating what someone says according to standards of good
argumentation if what is said does not contain any arguments. We do
not want simply to react to what someone says: we want to respond
appropriately.
A good clue to the presence of an argument is the use of certain
words—often called “indicator words”—such as “because,”
“therefore,” “hence,” “since,” “it follows that,” and so on. These words
are used to indicate explicitly that a premise or conclusion is being
stated. If our nuclear energy enthusiast had said:
Modern technology has solved harder problems, so you don’t have
to worry about nuclear waste
we can be sure that she is giving an argument. The reason we can be
sure is that she uses the word “so” to indicate that she is stating her
conclusion.
Critical Thinking
17
We will be discussing indicator words more fully in the next section,
when we assess their usefulness in analyzing arguments, and we will
see there that indicator words can be used in different ways, so they
do not necessarily indicate the presence of argument. For the moment,
we will concentrate on distinguishing arguments from various other
kinds of discourse, including description, diatribe, and explanation.
Argument and Description
The key to determining whether an argument is being given in a certain
passage is asking what purposes the author has in writing. If the author
is attempting to state what has happened, or what is the case, or what
something is like, he is engaged in descriptive writing, not
argumentation. If he is trying to prove something by giving reasons, he
is engaged in argumentative writing. Try to determine whether the
following passages are descriptive or argumentative.
(1) As the gap between the demand for and the availability of
health care resources grows wider, can physicians continue to
abide by the injunctions of their codes of ethics “Do no harm”
and “Consider first the well-being of the patient”? The
physicians’ role as advocate of the best interests of their
patients, regardless of cost, conflicts with another role that
they are often expected to fulfil, that of gatekeeper of society’s
scarce health care resources. The conflict between these roles
can present ethical dilemmas for physicians as they try to
balance their responsibilities to their patients, other patients in
need of the same scarce resources, health care institutions,
insurers, and society in general.
(Williams and Beresford, p. 121)
(2) The conflict between the roles of the physician as patient
advocate and as gatekeeper has become a topic of discussion
for health care economists, sociologists, policy analysts,
lawyers, ethicists and physicians. However, relatively little
attention has been given to the views of individual physicians.
Since physicians control access to an estimated 80 per cent of
health care expenditures, their perceptions of the problems of
allocation are an essential ingredient in any attempt to develop
effective policies. We analyze the views of 25 Canadian
physicians on this conflict of roles. We contend that the choice
18
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
among these roles is a matter of ethics, and we present the
main ethical considerations that should govern decisions.
(Williams and Beresford, p. 121)
Passage (1) is descriptive because its purpose is to state facts as the
authors see them. Note that the so-called “facts” may or may not be
accurate. What is at issue is not whether the authors’ assertions are
“factual,” but rather the intention of the authors as revealed by the
words they use. In this passage, it appears that the authors are stating
what they believe to be the case, so we categorize the passage as
descriptive. Passage (2) is argumentative because its purpose is to
prove the conclusion that health care allocation policies must take
physicians’ opinions into account on the basis of the premise that they
control 80 per cent of health care allocations.
The relationship between description and argument is somewhat
complicated, because each can be part of the other, that is, arguments
may contain description and descriptive passages may contain
arguments. Passage (2) is an example of a descriptive passage that
contains an argument.
The following review is another example of a descriptive passage that
contains an argument. The book under review is Mirror Mirror: The
Terror of Not Being Young, by Elissa Melamed.
This book looks at the complicated problem of aging. In our society
it is acceptable for men to age, but not for women. Men grow
distinguished . . . women grow old. So powerful are the sanctions
against aging that women have shrouded their embarrassment in
silence and complicity. Look at the billion dollar cosmetic industry
. . . the rejection of natural aging by the medical profession. Look at
the discrimination in terms of jobs: he hits his peak in middle age
. . . she is too old to work. This is an important ground-breaking
book.
(Tink, p. 6)
The author of this book review summarizes some of the arguments of
the book she is reviewing, and that is why we say that the passage as a
whole (except for the last sentence) is descriptive. The arguments
summarized have as their conclusions the claims that in our society it is
acceptable for men to age, but not for women, and that the sanctions
against aging are so great that women attempt to conceal evidence of
Critical Thinking
19
the aging process. The premises are the claims that we think differently
about aging men and aging women (for example, “men grow
distinguished . . . women grow old”) and that we treat aging men and
women differently (for example, it is claimed that there is job
discrimination against older women but not against older men). The
final sentence is in part descriptive and in part evaluative. To say that
the book is ground-breaking is in part to describe it as innovative, and
in part to praise it for its innovation. To say that the book is important
is to praise it.
For our purposes, the reason for distinguishing an argument from a
description is that we evaluate the two types of writing using different
criteria. We ask whether descriptive writing is accurate, illuminating,
and so on. (Has the book reviewer accurately and completely
portrayed the contents of the book?) We ask whether argumentative
writing is persuasive and well reasoned. (Has the writer given us good
reasons for believing that physicians’ opinions should be taken into
account?)
Argument and Diatribe
Diatribe is bitter and violent criticism or invective. It is often mistaken
for argumentation, possibly because of confusion among the various
senses of the word “argument” discussed above, but, more likely,
because of inattention. It is important to remember that an expression
of opinion, no matter whether forceful, vehement, and eloquent, or
finely turned, calm, and dispassionate, is not an argument unless
reasons are given to back it up.
Examples of diatribe are often found in letters to the editor, in which
people tend to give vent to their strong feelings instead of backing up
their opinions with arguments. Consider the following (fictitious) letter:
The politicians are at it again. An election coming up, and new
spending just “happens” to be needed. Name your favourite issue,
and you will find money for it—health care, education, social
services. And tax cuts too? I don’t trust a single one of them.
It is clear that the author of this letter believes that the new money
allocated to social programs has more to do with an upcoming election
than with real needs of the electorate, but she doesn’t give any
reasons for this view.
20
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
Argument and Explanation
As long as we remember to look for arguments, it is relatively easy to
distinguish argument from description and diatribe. It is a little harder
to distinguish argument from explanation, so a bit more must be said
on the subject. Suppose the management of a company announces
that it cannot contemplate awarding pay increases for the next year.
Very likely the workers will want to know why. The reasons
management gives constitute an explanation of why there will be no
pay raises for the next year: perhaps the explanation offered is that the
company has suffered losses for several years. Roughly speaking,
explanations are answers to certain kinds of “why” or “how” questions,
questions about why something happened or happens (why do
humans walk on two legs?) or why something is the case (why are you
so angry?) or how to do something (how do you download software?).
Note that when we give explanations, we are not trying to prove that
anything happens or that anything is the case. We already know that
humans walk on two legs and that software can be downloaded. What
we want to know is why or how.
This, then, is the difference between explanation and argument. When
we give arguments, we are trying to prove or demonstrate something,
whereas when we give explanations, we are trying to say why or how
something that is already known (or thought to be known) to happen
or to be the case happens or is the case. This distinction suggests that
the best way to determine whether a passage contains an argument or
an explanation is to ask yourself whether the author is trying to prove
something or trying to get you to understand why something is the
case or how something happens. For example, if someone said, “The
stock market crashed because investors lost confidence,” ask yourself
whether it is more likely that she is trying to prove that the stock
market crashed, or to explain why the stock market crashed. Which do
you think is the more plausible interpretation? Why?
It is not always easy to tell when an argument is being asked for or
given and when an explanation is being asked for or given. When
someone asks, “Why are you a vegetarian?” he might be asking you to
put forward what you consider to be a persuasive argument for
becoming a vegetarian, or he might be wondering what factors made
the difference in your case, that is, he might be asking for an
explanation of why you became a vegetarian. Similarly, when you reply
“Because I think raising animals for food is wasteful of the world’s
Critical Thinking
21
resources” you may be giving what you consider to be a good
argument for becoming a vegetarian or you may be explaining what
line of thinking led you to stop eating meat.
Often we have to rely on the context of a passage or on common sense
in determining whether an argument or explanation is being given.
Consider the following example:
The alarm bell rang because there was a short circuit.
In this case we can be pretty sure that an explanation is being given for
why the alarm bell rang, because we typically note an unusual event (in
this case the alarm bell rang when it was not supposed to) and then
attempt to explain or account for this event (in this case we discover a
short circuit).
Here is another, slightly more difficult, example:
DDT and related chlorinated hydrocarbons do not break down
easily. They persist in the environment and are poorly metabolized
and excreted by animals. Instead they build up, particularly in fatty
tissues, and are concentrated as they progress up the food chain.
Particularly large concentrations of DDT are therefore found in
predatory fishes and birds—and sometimes in man.
(Scientific American, January 1970, pp. 48–49)
The word “therefore” is an indicator word, but it can be used to signal
either the conclusion of an argument or an explanation for something,
so it alone does not tell us what is going on in this passage. We must
ask ourselves whether it is more likely that the author is trying to prove
that DDT is found in human and animal tissues, or is explaining why
DDT is found in human and animal tissues. It is more likely that this is
an explanation, because if the author were trying to prove that DDT is
to be found in human and animal tissue, he would probably cite
evidence available from tissue analysis. If the above were intended as
an argument, it would be an obviously bad one, not of the sort usually
found in Scientific American.
If you are unsure whether to identify a passage as an argument or an
explanation, one useful strategy is to give the passage a test drive, so
to speak, as both an argument and as an explanation, to see which
characteristics are a better fit. If you think the passage is an argument,
take a look at the conclusion you have identified. Does the author
22
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
intend the proposition as a controversial claim that he is trying to
prove or does he intend the proposition as a claim that is already
taken as given? If it is the later, the passage probably is not an
argument. If we reflect on the purpose of an argument, this
determination makes logical sense because an author wouldn't
provide an argument or try to convince us of something that he
already takes as given.
Next, examine the premises (reasons) you have identified. Do these
reasons function as evidence or justification to prove that the claim is
true or do they explain why or how something is the case? If they do
not serve a justificatory function or provide proof, then the passage is
not an argument because it fails to meet the requirements of what we
have defined as an argument. However, if the passage contains
reasons that explain how or why something is the case, it would most
likely be an explanation. It is often difficult to distinguish arguments
from explanations precisely because they both use “reasons” but those
reasons function differently and serve a different purpose in arguments
than they do in explanations.
Why is it important to distinguish between arguments and explanations?
Again, the reason is that different criteria are used in evaluating
arguments and explanations. This explanation is consistent with the
point we made earlier—that we have to know what kind of passage we
are dealing with before we can know how we should evaluate it. In
Units 3 to 7 of this course we will discuss how to evaluate arguments,
and in Unit 8 we will discuss how to evaluate explanations.
Learning Activity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k
Paste this link into your browser and watch the first 3:48 of the video
“Argument Clinic” by the Monty Python’s Flying Circus comedy troupe.
Try to determine if there are any arguments present and if so, try to
distinguish them from what is or is not an argument. Contact your
tutor to discuss this activity.
Critical Thinking
23
Step 3
Analyzing Arguments
Let us assume that we have determined that a given passage contains
an argument. The next step is to clarify exactly what its author is
claiming to prove, and what reasons are being given to support that
claim. There are several reasons for proceeding in this stepwise
fashion. First, it is unfair to the author to misrepresent her position. Of
course, when we do not agree with an author’s position, it is very
tempting to caricature or otherwise misrepresent it, or the reasons
given for it, in our efforts to refute it. “Well, if you think our
Parliamentary system is worthless . . .” we may begin in opposition to
someone who has pointed out a flaw in it. We must prevent ourselves
from doing this, and one way to do so is to get into the habit of
analyzing arguments carefully before beginning to evaluate them.
A second reason for careful analysis of arguments is that it is
unproductive to have the kind of discussion in which one party has to
keep saying, “But that isn’t what I said.” The discussion keeps getting
off track rather than proceeding towards a mutually agreed conclusion.
A final reason for careful argument analysis is that, if we are careful
thinkers, we may want to accept some reasons for a certain position
and reject others, or accept part of the position and reject the rest. This
kind of careful criticism provides a sharp contrast with the bombastic
shout “Rubbish!” that so often greets an argument. The contrast may
be likened to that between a painstaking archaeologist working with
tiny brushes, and someone who strides onto the site wielding a
pickaxe.
Let us now define argument analysis. In general terms, to analyze is to
distinguish the parts or elements of a whole, and to specify their
relations to one another. The analysis of arguments involves
distinguishing all the premises and conclusions of a given argument,
and indicating which conclusions are arrived at on the basis of which
premises. An argument may be simple, in the sense that only one
conclusion is drawn from one or more premises, or it may be complex,
in the sense that more than one conclusion is drawn, each of which
may in turn be used as premises for further conclusions. Argument
analysis is particularly useful in dealing with complex arguments.
24
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
To start with the simplest sort of argument possible, suppose that you
have just arrived at a friend’s house for a party and are surprised to
find the house dark. You think:
There aren’t any lights on. I must have got the date wrong.
It is quite clear in this case that your conclusion is “I got the date
wrong,” and that you have drawn this conclusion on the basis of the
premise that there are no lights on. There is no requirement that the
premises and conclusions of an argument must be stated in any
particular order. For example, you might just as well have thought:
I must have got the date wrong. There aren’t any lights on.
In other words, you cannot always expect to find the premises stated
first and the conclusion stated last in an argument.
Suppose now that you cannot believe that you got the date of the
party wrong, and you walk up to the house to see if you can hear
anything. All is silent, and you think:
I really must have got the date wrong. There aren’t any lights on,
and there isn’t any noise either.
This time the conclusion is drawn on the basis of two premises.
Since we are so familiar with this kind of inference in this type of
situation, we have no trouble at all determining which is the conclusion
and which are the premises, no matter in what order they are stated.
But what if we are not as familiar with the subject matter of the
argument?
Suppose, for example, we are reading an essay on environmental
accounting to learn, if possible, something about a new accounting
theory. We might think to ourselves, “I can’t tell much about the
structure of a bridge, and less about the structure of an airplane engine
or a computer without an engineering degree: without a degree in
accounting, how can I tell anything about the structure of an argument
about environmental accounting?”
One very important aid in analysis is the use of what we have called
“indicator words,” such as “since,” “because,” and “therefore,” which
authors use to indicate that they are about to state or have just stated
Critical Thinking
25
a premise or conclusion. In fact, an indicator word appeared in the
argument used as an example:
There aren’t any lights on. I must have got the date wrong.
Can you tell what the indicator word is?
It is “must,” which signifies in this case that something is thought to
follow from something else.
Here is another straightforward example, from Mr. Justice Thomas
Berger’s Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry:
I have indicated that the economic impact of the pipeline will not
bring lasting benefits to native northerners. In the next chapter, I
shall outline the social costs of the project. They will be very high.
And I shall have to say that construction of the pipeline now would
irremediably compromise the goals embodied in native claims. All
of these considerations lead inexorably to the conclusion that the
pipeline should not be built now.
(Report, p. 139)
The phrase “all of these considerations lead inexorably to the conclusion
that” indicates very clearly that Justice Berger takes himself to have
mentioned several premises, and is about to state his conclusion.
Even if the subject matter of an argument is unfamiliar, we can make
use of indicator words to determine its structure. We will illustrate this
point with a harder example. This example is extracted from a longer
work, and you may well have trouble telling what the topic of the
passage is. The point of this exercise is to show that you can determine
the structure of the passage from the indicator words alone, even if
you do not know what the author is talking about. When you use this
method, you will find that determining something about the structure
of the passage will give you some insight into its meaning, and knowing
something of its meaning will further aid your understanding of its
structure, and so on, until you gain a tolerable understanding of
something that looked impenetrable at first glance. Here is the example:
Because denial is a form of self-protection, if only against anguishing
thoughts and feelings, and because it contains something useful,
and perhaps even, in its own way, necessary to life, anyone who
invites people to draw aside the veil and look at the peril face to
26
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
face is at risk of trespassing on inhibitions that are a part of our
humanity.
(Schell, p. 8)
The word “because” is the indicator word in this passage. It is used
twice to indicate that the author is about to state a premise.
It is a useful practice first to underline all the indicator words in a
passage you wish to analyze, and then either to put brackets around or
to circle each premise and conclusion. The last example would look like
this:
premise
Because (denial is a form of self-protection, if only against anguishing
premise
thoughts and feelings,) and because (it contains something useful,
conclusion
and perhaps even, in its way, necessary to life,) (anyone who invites
people to draw aside the veil and look at the peril face to face is at
risk of trespassing on inhibitions that are part of our humanity.)
In fact, Schell is discussing our tendency to avoid or put off thinking
about the horrible effects of a nuclear war, suggesting that such
avoidance may be linked with a love of life, and thus, in some ways,
may be valuable and worthy of respect. The same point could be made
about our tendency to avoid thinking about famine, ecological
disasters, or other distressing topics.
Many words and phrases can be used to signal premises and
conclusions. The following list gives only the most commonly used
ones. It is important that you become sensitive to the nuances of
language and get into the habit of asking yourself what the author is
doing. In your own writing, as well, you should get into the habit of
asking yourself: What do I want to say in this sentence (paragraph,
essay)? What is the best way to make clear to my reader what I am
doing in this sentence (paragraph, essay)? and so on.
Now for our list:
Critical Thinking
27
Premise Indicators
Conclusion Indicators
because
since
on the grounds that
considering that
for
for the reason that
inasmuch as
therefore
so
it follows that
this implies that
hence
thus
we may infer that
we may conclude that
consequently
It is helpful to think up simple arguments using each of the words listed
above. For example, an employer might reason:
We will have to lay off some of our workers for the reason that
demand for our product is down.
Or she might say:
Because demand for our product is down, we will have to lay off
some of our workers.
Or:
Inasmuch as demand for our product is down, we will have to lay
off some of our workers.
You might wish to think up some simple arguments of your own using
other indicator words from the list.
Another worthwhile exercise is to look for examples of the use of
indicator words in newspapers, magazines and books. In doing this
exercise, you may come across words you wish to add to our list of
indicator words. If you are in doubt about the function of any particular
word, or about what follows from what in a passage you are reading,
consult your tutor.
Not everything in a passage containing an argument is necessarily part
of the argument. In the process of analyzing an argument, we note
only the premises and conclusions; we ignore the rest of the passage.
This is not to suggest that the rest of the passage is useless or
unimportant: it may introduce the topic under discussion, so that we
know what is being talked about, or it may provide us with important
definitions or background information, among other things.
28
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
Here is an example of a paragraph that contains both an argument and
material extraneous to the argument. It is taken from an article about
the dangers of using anaesthetics as substitutes for the more expensive
and illegal cocaine:
Pharmacologist Marian W. Fischman, who has been comparing the
effects of cocaine and anesthetics on human subjects at the
University of Chicago, notes that, although the products [i.e.
anesthetics] aren’t stimulants, they do “cause the person to feel
high or mildly euphoric.” Since the anesthetics are often used to
activate nerves that stimulate the heart, Fischman adds, “anyone
using these products runs the risk of bringing about undesired
changes.”
(Fenjves, p. 39)
The first sentence of the passage contains information about the
psychological effects of anaesthetics. Only the second contains an
argument. We would begin to analyze the argument this way:
Pharmacologist Marian W. Fischman, who has been comparing the
effects of cocaine and anesthetics on human subjects at the
University of Chicago, notes that, although the products [i.e.
anesthetics] aren’t stimulants, they do “cause the person to feel
premise
high or mildly euphoric.” Since (the anesthetics are often used to
conclusion
activate nerves that stimulate the heart,) Fischman adds, (“anyone
using these products runs the risk of bringing about undesired
changes.”)
Here is another example. See if you can tell what kind of additional
material is present besides an argument, and what the premises and
conclusions of the argument are.
There is a perennial classical question that asks which part of the
motorcycle, which grain of sand in which pile, is the Buddha.
Obviously to ask that question is to look in the wrong direction, for
Critical Thinking
29
the Buddha is everywhere. But just as obviously to ask the question
is to look in the right direction, for the Buddha is everywhere.
(Pirsig, p. 83)
The first sentence tells us the topic of the passage, namely, the
question of the location of the Buddha. The second and third
sentences each contain an argument. Two seemingly contradictory
conclusions are said to follow from the same premise. Did you analyze
the passage this way?
There is a perennial classical question that asks which part of the
motorcycle, which grain of sand in which pile, is the Buddha.
conclusion
Obviously (to ask that question is to look in the wrong direction,)
premise
conclusion
for (the Buddha is everywhere.) But just as obviously (to ask that
premise
question is to look in the right direction,) for (the Buddha is
everywhere.)
As a final test of the usefulness of indicator words in analyzing arguments,
see if you can make any headway analyzing the following passage from
the testimony of Norman Ture to the Joint Economic Committee of the
United States Congress. Do not be discouraged if you do not understand
the passage. The author uses many technical terms that he does not
explain. Also, unless we gave a really difficult example, you would not
fully appreciate the use of the method for tackling arguments in
unfamiliar fields of thought. Remember that not everything in the
passage need be part of the argument: there may be definitions,
background material, asides, extraneous material, and so on.
Here is the passage:
Fiscal policy embodying the neoclassical analytics would
concentrate on reducing marginal tax rates in order to reduce the
costs of effort and of saving, thereby increasing the amount of
labor and capital services supplied and employed, resulting in
increases in real output. . . . Note that it is the marginal tax rate on
which the neoclassical analysis is focused. . . . It is the tax on the
marginal dollar of income which affects one or more relative prices
30
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
and which, therefore, enters into individual and household
discussions about the amount and composition of economic
activity. A tax reduction which reduces tax liability without reducing
marginal tax rates, accordingly, is ineffectual.
(Ture, p. 320)
Did you find the two indicator words, “therefore” and “accordingly”?
Both are used to signal conclusions. (Note that this is also an example
of a passage containing an indicator word not on our original list. You
may wish to add it.) The first sentence of the passage provides the
reader with background information about Ture’s economic theory
(which Ture calls “the neoclassical analysis”) and indicates that the
topic of the passage is “a fiscal policy that will stimulate the economy.”
The second sentence points out to the reader what is noteworthy
about the theory. Both sentences can be considered as background
material. In the third sentence, we get the beginning of the argument
itself. Our next step is to underline the indicator words and mark
premises and conclusions:
premise
(It is the tax on the marginal dollar of income which affects one or
conclusion
more relative prices) and (which, therefore, enters into individual
and household discussions about the amount and composition of
conclusion
economic activity.) (A tax reduction which reduces tax liability
without reducing marginal tax rates, accordingly, is ineffectual.)
Now that we have been able to make some headway figuring out the
structure of the passage, we can see what we would need to find out
to understand it. We would have to know, at least, what the marginal
dollar and marginal tax rates are. If we did a little reading on the
subject, we would find out that marginal tax rates are the highest rates
levied on high-income taxpayers. What is being argued for in our
passage, then, is that tax cuts for the highest income groups will have a
stimulating effect on the economy.
By going through the passage in this systematic way, we have made
some progress in understanding what is being argued for, and have
learned something about one economic theory. Already we can
Critical Thinking
31
probably get a bit more out of budget speeches. This is not to suggest
that we are already experts. However, we have made a start in tackling
the subject, and we can go on to read articles and books to inform
ourselves further. Note that we have not yet begun to ask whether the
argument in our sample passage is a good one or not. We have
pursued only the related questions of the structure of the argument,
and the meaning of its premises and conclusions.
You may have noticed that in marking the premises and conclusions of
our sample passages, we have often bracketed units that are not
complete sentences. In our last example, we bracketed “which . . .
enters into individual and household discussions about the amount and
composition of economic activity.” Since this is not a complete
sentence, it cannot, strictly speaking, be said to be the conclusion of an
argument. To state the conclusion fully, we would write, “It is the tax
on the marginal dollar of income which enters into individual and
household discussions about the amount and composition of economic
activity.” Also, our last example is a complex argument, in the sense
that one of its conclusions, the first one, is used as a premise for a
further conclusion, the second one. We have not yet shown you how
to indicate this argument structure. Nor have we presented a method
for indicating exactly which premises are meant to support which
conclusions. These and other fine points of argument analysis will be
presented in Unit 2.
It should be noted here that conditional statements, that is, statements
of the form “if . . . then . . .”—for example, “If you want to get to
Jasper, then you should take Highway 16”—are not arguments. We
never break up conditional statements and say that the sentence
following “if” is the premise, and the sentence following “then” is the
conclusion. In other words, the word “if” is not a premise indicator and
the word “then” is not a conclusion indicator, because when one
makes a conditional statement, one is not claiming one statement to
be true on the basis of the claim that another statement is true. The
person who says that if you want to get to Jasper then you should take
Highway 16 is not claiming that you want to get to Jasper, nor is he
claiming that you should take Highway 16, so we cannot say that he is
attempting to prove the conclusion that you should take Highway 16
on the basis of the premise that you want to get to Jasper. In order to
see this point more clearly, think of the difference in meaning in the
following statements:
32
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
(1) If you want to get to Jasper, then you should take Highway 16.
(2) Since you want to get to Jasper, you should take Highway 16.
The component statements of (1) and (2) look similar, but (2), unlike
(1), is an argument: it is being argued that you should take Highway 16
(conclusion) on the basis of the fact that you want to get to Jasper
(premise).
The points made in the previous paragraph may become clearer if we
think of the meaning of other kinds of conditionals. “Shoot if you see
the whites of their eyes” is a conditional command, and “You should
see a doctor if your cold gets any worse” is a conditional piece of
advice. (Note that it is not necessary to use the word “then” in a
conditional sentence, and the order of “if . . .” and “then . . .” may be
reversed.) In the first example, you are being given the command to
shoot on condition that you see the whites of their eyes; you are not
being given the simple unconditional command to shoot. In the
second example, you are being given the advice to see a doctor on
condition that your cold gets worse, not the simple or unconditional
advice to see a doctor. Similarly, in conditional statements, you are
told that a certain statement may be asserted on condition that
another, specified, statement is true or a specified condition is
fulfilled. Often, but not always, we use conditional statements to
state the consequences of certain actions, as in “If you pull the cat’s
tail (condition), then she will bite you (consequence).”
A conditional statement may be part of an argument, that is, it may be
a premise or conclusion of an argument. Consider the following two
passages:
(3) Undoubtedly it is true that if an individual who is kept artificially
alive is no longer a person, then removing the life-support
system or indeed administering a drug to kill him is not an act
of murder.
(Kluge, p. 163)
(4) Life, in and by itself, is nothing of intrinsic value. It gains
whatever value it has from its content, from the quality with
which it is imbued. Therefore if a life is unalterably unbearable
in nature, it is not worth living.
(Kluge, p. 120)
Critical Thinking
33
Passage (3) is not an argument, but rather a claim that one thing
(inducing death in a person who is kept alive artificially is not an act of
murder) follows from another (an individual who is kept alive artificially
is no longer a person). Neither statement is actually being claimed to
be true. Passage (4) is an argument, the conclusion of which is the
conditional sentence, “if life is unalterably unbearable in nature, it is
not worth living,” and whose premises are “Life, in and by itself, is
nothing of intrinsic value” and “Life gains whatever value it has from its
content, from the quality with which it is imbued.”
Now that we have presented the method of using indicator words to
help determine the structure of an argument, some serious words of
caution must be introduced. As we said earlier, because of the richness
of the English language, the rules we give can be considered as
guidelines only. What this means is that our list of indicator words must
not be used mechanically.
Caution is necessary because most of the words and phrases on our list
can be used in more than one way; that is, they can do other things
besides point out premises and conclusions. To give a simple example,
if you underlined the word “for” every time you came across it, you
would find yourself underlining it when it is being used as a
preposition, as in “This knife is used for boning fish.” Careful reading
will prevent you from making this kind of mistake. The word “thus”
also has uses other than as a conclusion indicator. Its use to mean “in
this way,” as in “It came about thus that Anna found herself at the villa
by the sea,” could easily be confused with its use to mean “therefore.”
Further, as was pointed out in the section on identifying arguments,
the words “because” and “therefore,” and several of the other
indicator words, can be used to signal parts of explanations as well as
parts of arguments, so we must be on guard against mechanically
underlining these words, and supposing that they signal premises and
conclusions.
These cautionary words apply just as much to identifying arguments as
to analyzing arguments, since indicator words are used to indicate that
an argument is being given as well as to indicate premises and
conclusions. In summary, indicator words are very useful tools for
argument identification and analysis, provided you use them carefully,
where “carefully” means reading with the following questions in mind:
“What is the author doing in this sentence or paragraph?” and “How is
the author using this word or phrase?”
34
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
Note that authors do not always use indicator words in presenting their
arguments. How can you tell in these circumstances what they are
trying to prove and what they are presenting as reasons? Again,
common sense and context are your best guides. For example, in an
article on juvenile delinquency, you can expect to find theories about
what causes delinquency and arguments about whether the theories
are good or not. Evidence for these theories and arguments would be
data gathered by psychologists and other social scientists.
A rule of thumb that is useful in many cases is that people generally try
to argue for what is controversial, new, or unusual by using premises
that are more familiar, widely accepted, or easily demonstrated. The
following example illustrates this principle:
The idea of increased longevity is largely a myth. People are not
generally living longer. There are just more people getting old.
Eighty percent of the increase in life expectancy in the U.S. is due to
the elimination of widespread infant mortality.
(U.S. News, June 30, 1980, p. 48)
In this case the author is trying to dislodge a widely held belief by citing
statistics that may not be widely known but that can be checked by
anyone willing to put in the necessary time and effort.
The following passage provides another example that illustrates this
point:
Prisons are . . . necessary. . . . The existence of prisons and the
prospect of incarceration make up a backdrop of deterrence that
keeps the crime rate from overflowing. Prisons also serve the
melancholy social task of consuming the youth of violent offenders
and returning them to the community drained of the vitality
necessary for aggression. Finally, prison sentences serve the
morally unifying and emotionally releasing purpose of expressing
communal reprobation through ceremonies of degradation that
bind people together in separating them from the criminal.
(Hughes, p. 4)
The author is attempting to gain assent to his conclusion that prisons
are necessary on the basis of three relatively widely held beliefs.
(Although the language used in this example is quite complicated, close
inspection will show that at least the first two premises have
Critical Thinking
35
widespread popular support.) The words “also” and “finally” are
further clues that several reasons are being given for believing
something.
A final point to keep in mind is that an argument is usually more
plausible if it is interpreted one way rather than in other possible
ways—even if it is not a very good argument. We should always try to
interpret an argument in the way that makes it most plausible, since
there is nothing to be gained (at least as far as arriving at the truth is
concerned) by attributing ridiculously bad arguments to people. We
will do better by giving people’s arguments the benefit of the doubt.
The authors of the main textbook for this course, Critical Reasoning,
call this approach using the “Principle of Charitable Interpretation.”
Consider the following argument:
The search for answers [to the food crisis] is under way, but
solutions are far in the future. It is now possible to extract nitrogen
from gasified coal, yet the cost still is too high to make this process
practical for large-scale agricultural purposes.
(Wallace, p. 40)
It would be perverse and silly to suggest that the author is trying to
prove the conclusion that it is now possible to extract nitrogen from
gasified coal on the basis of the premise that the search for answers to
the food crisis is under way.
Reading Assignment
You should now read pages 19–30 of Chapter 2, “The Anatomy of
Arguments: Identifying Premises and Conclusions,” in Critical Reasoning.
Here are some things to keep in mind as you read the second chapter:
36

We recommend bracketing premises and conclusions rather than
circling them or writing them in standard form, as suggested on
pages 25 and 26 of the textbook. You may use whichever method
you prefer for Exercise 2.1 on pages 26–28 of the textbook.

Don’t worry if you have trouble understanding the discussion of
deductive and nondeductive arguments on pages 19–22. The
distinction between the two types of arguments will become
clearer as you progress through the course.
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1

It is extremely important that you maintain regular contact with
your tutor as you work through this unit. Later units build upon this
one, so you must ensure that you have a satisfactory grasp of it.
Exercise 3
Go to the ‘Unit 1 Exercises’ link on the course home page for
instructions on Exercise 3.
Part 2 Applying the Critical Approach to Writing
Suppose you have to write an essay presenting and defending an
interpretation of a novel, poem, or play, or discussing a psychological
or sociological theory. Or perhaps you have been asked to write a
report recommending a certain course of action to a company or
government agency, or a letter of complaint or compliment to a
newspaper, store, company, or government agency. Any time you have
to defend a point of view in writing, you are faced with the task of
stating and defending your position clearly and persuasively. This task
may seem overwhelming, especially if you have not had much practice.
How should you go about it? We will discuss the first few steps in this
section.
For an argument to be interesting or useful, it must be in defence of a
controversial or novel point of view. It is unlikely that anyone would be
interested in an argument purporting to show that grass is green, but
an argument to the effect that grass is not really green has at least the
potential to be interesting. Our use of the word “controversial”
suggests that various people hold conflicting opinions on the subject in
question. Our use of the word “novel” suggests that many people hold
an accepted or received opinion, whereas only one or a few hold a new
and untried one. The reason we mention this point is that it is
important to keep your audience in mind as you write. It is a good idea
to conjure up an imaginary opponent who is willing to be reasonable,
but who needs to be convinced of your position and may well have
arguments against it.
This discussion suggests something about the way you should structure
the argumentative part (the body) of your essay, proposal, or letter.
Critical Thinking
37
That is, you should state (a) whatever arguments you have in support
of your own position; (b) objections your opponent may have to your
arguments; (c) replies you have to those objections; (d) arguments he
may have in support of a different conclusion; and (e) replies to those
arguments. If this process seems a little complicated, try thinking of it
as a fencing match or any other competitive game with an imaginary
opponent. You thrust, he parries. He thrusts, you parry. The important
thing to remember is that you should never argue in a vacuum. You
always argue to persuade someone (even if it is only yourself). Note
that it will not help your case at all to imagine a slow, dull-witted
opponent who does not have anything incisive to say against your
position, just as always playing against a weaker opponent will not help
your tennis game. Your reader will soon discover the trick and
substitute the stronger arguments you failed to include, and to which it
is now too late to reply.
The full structure mentioned above involves five parts:
1. your arguments.
2. your opponent’s objections to your arguments.
3. your replies to your opponent’s objections.
4. your opponent’s arguments for a conflicting conclusion.
5. your replies to your opponent’s arguments.
As you may imagine, such a thorough treatment of any issue is very
time consuming and should be reserved for complex and important
issues. Nevertheless, you should keep it in mind as an ideal.
One point should be made before we go any further: people will read
only the final draft of your essay, report, or letter. Thus, the order in
which you write the parts does not matter very much. In fact, very few
people are clear enough about what they want to say to start from the
first sentence of the introduction and work their way through point by
point until they reach the conclusion. What is important is that the
finished product, after editing and rewriting, conforms to acceptable
standards of clarity and coherence. You should feel free to use your
favourite method for writing a first draft, whether it be jotting down
points at random on the back of old envelopes, or working out
38
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
elaborate organizational schemes and filling them in. Our suggestions
will be helpful for turning the first draft into a finished piece of work.
Let us now turn to the overall structure of your essay. The following
steps may be thought of as a check list for making sure that your final
copy is clear and coherent.
Step 1
Specify Topic and Main Points or Conclusion
This step may seem so obvious that it needn’t be mentioned, but many
an essay, report, and letter have failed to produce the desired
response because of confusion on these points. (If you need to be
convinced of this fact, look at a typical day’s letters to the editor in your
local newspaper.) An essay may be defective in this regard in several
ways: by failing to introduce the topic or position taken, by stating
them unclearly, or by running them together in a confusing way.
It is important for both the writer and the reader that the topic and
main points be stated clearly in an introduction. From the reader’s
point of view, if there is no introduction, or if it is unclear, much of the
important argumentation will pass by before it becomes obvious what
is being argued. The piece may appear to be a series of unconnected
statements rather than a coherent whole. You, the writer, may think
you know what the topic is and what your position is, but you may get
a surprise when you try to state either in a sentence or two. And if you
cannot do it, how can you expect your reader to figure it out? Once
you have stated the topic and introduced your conclusion (sometimes
called a “thesis statement”), you can check through the rest of your
essay to make sure that everything you say bears on the topic and
supports your conclusion. (Although discursive writing can often
tolerate some extraneous material, most of it should be considered
“weeds” and dealt with accordingly.)
As far as exact wording is concerned, that is up to you. We will not
have anything to say in this course about eloquence or elegance of
style. Suffice it to say that you do not have to begin every essay with
the words “The topic of this essay is. . . .” All that is required is that you
convey to the reader, in plain, straightforward language, what you are
talking about. Many people start by mentioning a current controversy
(“There has been much discussion of late about whether to build a
freeway through the local ravine . . .”), or a widely held belief that they
Critical Thinking
39
wish to challenge (“It is widely believed that parents are the final
authority on the matter of how their children should be disciplined . . .”).
Nor need you always say, “My conclusion is . . .” or “The position I will
defend is . . .”—again, as long as you make clear what you will be
arguing for. Most of the time you will be defending a single thesis, for
example, “The freeway should not be built,” but sometimes you will
want to argue for two or three closely related ones. You should be very
careful to keep them distinct, because you will want to construct
separate arguments for each. For example, your thesis might be, “The
freeway probably should not be built at all and certainly not until some
alternative routes have been studied more thoroughly.” Or, “But there
are limits to the physical harm society will allow parents to inflict upon
children, and rightly so: we must not shrink from judging when these
limits have been exceeded.” Specifying your thesis in the introduction
will keep you from sliding from argument to argument in the body of
your paper, so that the reader cannot tell what your position is. (“Is she
saying that the freeway should not be built at all, or that it should not
be built until further studies have been conducted? Is she saying that
parents are not the final authority, or that they should not be, or both?)
You should also give the reader some idea of what your main
arguments are going to be. You do not have to give everything away
right at the start, but you should give a general indication of the nature
of your arguments so that the reader can concentrate on their
substance. You might say, “My main argument will be that society has
the responsibility of protecting its members from physical harm, and
this responsibility takes precedence over parental authority.” If the
issue is a familiar one, you might limit your introduction to what you
consider to be the special feature of your position. For example, you
might say “I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to the
question of safety, since no provision has been made for crosswalks or
pedestrian bridges over the freeway.”
Step 2
Identify Arguments
If your points are to have their maximum effect, your reader must
spend her time absorbing them, not trying to figure out where one
ends and the next begins. It is a good idea to use indicator words
liberally to mark off where one argument ends and another one
40
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
begins. Compare the following two paragraphs, which are superficially
quite similar.
Version A
The freeway should not be built now. Traffic patterns have not
developed as predicted. New housing and commercial development
has slowed significantly in the southeast section of the city. The
projected need for the freeway has not materialized. The design is
not safe, according to current plans. There are no crosswalks or
pedestrian bridges.
This paragraph gives the impression of being a series of unconnected
statements. A reader could probably figure out how many arguments
were being presented, and what they were, but see how much more
effective the ideas become when presented as follows.
Version B
My main reason for thinking that the freeway should not be built
now is that traffic patterns have not developed as predicted,
because new housing and commercial development has slowed
significantly in the southeast section of the city. This means that
the projected need for the freeway has not materialized.
Furthermore, the design is not safe according to current plans,
because there are no crosswalks or pedestrian bridges.
Step 3
Indicate Structure of Arguments
This step is closely related to the previous one. As well as indicating
where one argument ends and another begins, you should make clear
to your reader the premises and the conclusions of each of your
arguments. We will assume that you have a pretty fair grasp of the use
of indicator words now, and will make only one further point. You will
remember that a full case in support of a position should include
replies to arguments that opponents might make against your case. It
is extremely important to make clear when you are stating an
argument your opponent might make, and when you are replying to
that argument. Avoid running together several of your opponent’s
objections and your replies to these objections. Take one at a time, and
proceed in a systematic fashion. Otherwise, confusion reigns.
Critical Thinking
41
The following passage is an example of the lack of clarity that may
result from running together a statement of an opposing position and
replies to that position.
Parents are the final authority on the matter of how children are to
be disciplined. Many people believe this, or think they do, but they
also believe it is right to remove battered children from their
homes. But parents might harm their children physically trying to
teach them how to behave, so what is the difference between
battering and discipline? Why should parents be the best judges of
the degree of punishment their children need? Could not an
objective observer be a better judge?
How would you rewrite the passage to make it clearer?
Exercise 4
Go to the ‘Unit 1 Exercises’ link on the course home page for
instructions on Exercise 4.
The Nonexpert in a World of Experts
Before going on, we must address questions which will probably
trouble you as you grapple with difficult issues and try to develop
satisfactory and defensible positions of your own about them:
I am not an expert on this subject.
Who am I to put forward my opinion?
Why not leave it to the experts?
Cederblom and Paulsen try to answer these questions in Chapter 12 of
Critical Reasoning. They point out that we must know at least enough
to know who the experts are, that experts often disagree, and that,
while an expert’s field of expertise may be rather narrow, making a
decision about the matter at hand may require consideration of a wide
variety of factors. For example, someone may be an expert in the
disposal of nuclear power plant wastes, in that she knows how all the
procedures work, how effective each method is, and what the risks of
each are, but may not be qualified to judge which method should be
used. Other considerations must be taken into account, such as how
42
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
much risk the public is prepared to take, how much environmental
damage should be allowed, and so on.
In Canada, most provincial governments have recognized the value of
the contributions of concerned citizens in the assessment of the
environmental impacts of large-scale industrial developments by
requiring that committees studying the environmental effects of such
developments seek public participation. How can concerned citizens
best prepare themselves to make contributions to such public decisionmaking processes? Cederblom and Paulsen recommend a strategy for
decision making for nonexperts in a world of experts.
Reading Assignment
Read Chapter 12, “Making Reasonable Decisions As an Amateur in a
World of Specialists,” pages 339–351 of Critical Reasoning.
Exercise 5
Go to the ‘Unit 1 Exercises’ link on the course home page for
instructions on Exercise 5.
Exercise 6
Follow the instructions below for Exercise 6.
To make sure that you can apply the main points presented in this unit,
we have included a review exercise.
Part A
Instructions
Some of the following passages contain arguments and some do not.
State whether or not you think each passage contains an argument,
and why you think so. If the passage contains an argument, underline
all indicator words and bracket and label all premises and conclusions.
Answers are provided at the end of the exercise.
Critical Thinking
43
Sample Passage
premise
Take . . . the man who engages the services of a prostitute: (there
need be nothing deceitful, cruel, unfair, selfish or cowardly about
conclusion
such an episode,) and hence (except in special cases his action,
although impersonal, is not immoral.)
(Hunter, p. 92)
This passage contains an argument because the author is trying to
convince the reader that it is not immoral to engage the services of a
prostitute on the grounds that it need not have the qualities of an
immoral act (i.e., it is not deceitful, cruel, etc.)
Exercise Questions
1. One might argue that the availability of search engines helps
people be responsible information seekers on the Internet. For
example, anyone can easily determine whether different Web sites
report the same information; one can even determine whether
certain Web sites have been subject to praise or blame for the
information posted on the site.
(Wachbroit, p. 11)
2. To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something
loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state.
Political laments are not usual in the age of progress, because most
people think that society always moves forward to better things.
(Grant, p. 2)
3. Since tests proved that it took at least 2.3 seconds to operate the
bolt action on Oswald’s rifle, Oswald obviously could not have
fired three times—hitting Kennedy twice and Connally once—in
5.6 seconds or less.
(Time, p. 47)
4. At last a book has been published which truly assesses the importance
of the ranching industry of western Canada and places it in its
44
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
proper perspective in the annals of Canadian history. Dr. Breen has
explored sources of information hitherto virtually untapped and
through careful research and skilled analysis of his findings has
produced a book that provides an understanding of the ranching
industry; why it was founded and how, why it developed as it did
and by what means. Through his efforts the significance of the
western ranch saga to the nation as a whole is revealed.
(Jameson, p. 39)
5. Successful students are motivated students who accept some
responsibility for their own learning and who understand that
success comes from their own efforts. They are the ones who do
their best in school. They have the ability to pay attention and
concentrate on school-related tasks. They can ignore or reduce
distractions, from the environment or from their own thoughts,
that would interfere with learning. They have the skills to
understand the ideas that are presented in school and in their
textbooks, and they know how to get help if they have trouble
understanding. They can remember the facts and ideas they need
to achieve in school and to do well on national tests. In addition,
successful students can do all this in a relatively relaxed or stressfree way. They might be concerned about doing well in school, but
they do not create excessive pressure for themselves.
(Weinstein, et al., p. 1)
6. Many of the attacks farmers and mostly farmer-run marketing
boards have had to undergo in the press and in widely reported
public hearings have not been fair, or even responsible. They have
served, instead, to drive a wedge between two groups that in a
modern, western economy should be natural allies because both
are such a system’s natural victims: consumers struggling to
balance their weekly food budgets and family farmers battling to
balance the books of their individual enterprises, which historically
have had little leverage in the marketplace.
(Pawlick, p. 28)
7. The most important reason for Japan’s sustained high growth in
productivity is the cooperative attitude between management and
labor. That includes our lifetime-employment system.
(Kohei Goshi, quoted in U.S. News & World Report, July 28, 1980,
p. 57)
Critical Thinking
45
8. . . . on the question of wage or salary differentials, there may be
good market reasons for insisting that the wages of a physician and
dentist be greater than those of a nurse or dental technician, for if
each cost the patient roughly the same (if one could for the same
price have the services of a better qualified person) no one would
want to use a nurse or dental technician, even in small matters.
The price system, in this case, is a mechanism for the efficient
rationing of time. If as a result of differential wages the income
spread between the occupations became exceedingly high, one
could then use the tax laws to reduce the differences.
(Bell, p. 452)
9. The objective of this book is to demonstrate how the newly
emerging field of environmental accounting could serve the needs
of corporations aspiring to be sustainable over the coming decades.
The book is then intended to provide an initial road map of what
accounting could be, rather than describe what is actually in place
today. The concepts introduced are new and necessarily of an
innovative nature. The accounting systems proposed are virtually
nonexistent today. Therefore, to achieve my objective, I chose to
write the book in the genre of what I would call a “fictional
documentary.”
(Rubenstein, p. xi)
10. Though Rome seems to be ceaselessly at war, she was at war
because of the force of events and the logic of her own
temperament.
(Barrow, p. 33)
11. Because scientists and the achievements of science have earned
the respect of society at large, the behavior of scientists must
accord not only with the expectations of scientific colleagues, but
also with those of a larger community. As science becomes more
closely linked to economic and political objectives, the processes by
which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research
practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one
reason for scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen
the methods by which they foster responsible research practices.
(Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, p. 7)
46
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
12. All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current
conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by
challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is
the removal of censorships. There is the whole case against
censorships in a nutshell.
(Shaw, p. 16)
13. For he whom evil is to befall, must in his own person exist at the
very time it comes, if the misery and suffering are haply to have
any place at all; but since death precludes this, and forbids him to
be, upon whom the ills can be brought, you may be sure that we
have nothing to fear after death, and that he who exists not,
cannot become miserable. . . .
(Lucretius, p. 131)
14. Since it is impossible for every individual, as for every nation,
simultaneously to be stronger than his neighbours, it is a truism
that liberty, as distinct from the liberties of special persons and
classes, can exist only in so far as it is limited by rules, which secure
that freedom for some is not slavery for others.
(Tawney, p. 164)
Answers for Exercise 6, Part A
conclusion
1. One might argue that (the availability of search engines helps people
be responsible information seekers on the Internet). For example,
premise
(anyone can easily determine whether different Web sites report
premise
the same information); (one can even determine whether certain
Web sites have been subject to praise or blame for the information
posted on the site).
Note: we identify this passage as an argument even though it is
unclear from the context that the author necessarily endorses the
reported argument. It is an argument nevertheless because the
Critical Thinking
47
author gives reasons that serve as evidence for believing something
is true.
2. Not an argument, but an explanation of why political laments are
not usual in the age of progress.
premise
3. Since (tests proved that it took at least 2.3 seconds to operate the
conclusion
bolt action on Oswald’s rifle,) (Oswald obviously could not have
fired three times—hitting Kennedy twice and Connally once—in
5.6 seconds or less.)
4. Not an argument.
5. Not an argument.
6. The passage as a whole is descriptive, but it contains an argument:
conclusion
. . . (two groups . . . in a modern, western economy should be natural
premise
allies) because (both are such a system’s natural victims). . . .
7. Not an argument.
conclusion
8. . . . on the question of wage or salary differentials, (there may be
good market reasons for insisting that the wages of a physician and
dentist be greater than those of a nurse or dental technician,) for
premise
(if each cost the patient roughly the same (if one could for the
same price have the services of a better qualified person) no one
would want to use a nurse or dental technician, even in small
premise
matters.) (The price system, in this case, is a mechanism for the
efficient rationing of time.) If as a result of differential wages the
48
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
income spread between the occupations became exceedingly high,
one could then use the tax laws to reduce the differences.
premise
9. (The objective of this book is to demonstrate how the newly
emerging field of environmental accounting could serve the needs
of corporations aspiring to be sustainable over the coming decades.)
conclusion
(The book is then intended to provide an initial road map of what
accounting could be, rather than describe what is actually in place
today.) The concepts introduced are new and necessarily of an
innovative nature. The accounting systems proposed are virtually
nonexistent today. Therefore, to achieve my objective, I chose to
write the book in the genre of what I would call a “fictional
documentary.”
Note: This passage also contains an explanation.
10. Not an argument.
premise
11. Because (scientists and the achievements of science have earned
conclusion
the respect of society at large,) (the behavior of scientists must
accord not only with the expectations of scientific colleagues, but
premise
also with those of a larger community.) (As science becomes more
closely linked to economic and political objectives, the processes
by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research
practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny.) This is one
Critical Thinking
49
conclusion
reason for (scientists and research institutions to clarify and
strengthen the methods by which they foster responsible research
practices.)
premise
12. (All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current
premise
conceptions and existing institutions.) (All progress is initiated by
challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
conclusion
existing institutions.) Consequently (the first condition of progress
is the removal of censorships.) There is the whole case against
censorships in a nutshell.
premise
13. For (he whom evil is to befall, must in his own person exist at the
very time it comes, if the misery and suffering are haply to have
premise
any place at all;) but since (death precludes this, and forbids him
to be, upon whom the ills can be brought,) you may be sure that
conclusion
(we have nothing to fear after death,) and that he who exists not,
cannot become miserable. . . .
premise
14. Since (it is impossible for every individual, as for every nation,
simultaneously to be stronger than his neighbours,) it is a truism
conclusion
that (liberty, as distinct from the liberties of special persons and
classes, can exist only in so far as it is limited by rules, which secure
that freedom for some is not slavery for others.)
50
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
Part B
Find an argument in a newspaper, magazine, or book—possibly a
textbook in another course you are taking. Write out the argument,
underline all indicator words, and indicate the premises and
conclusions of the argument.
Note: Since we have not yet learned how to analyze complex
arguments, you should attempt to locate an argument with one or
more premises and one conclusion. We will be learning how to analyze
more complicated arguments in the next unit.
Conclusion
The most important thing to grasp as a result of working through this
unit is that it is possible to develop and improve your ability to think
and write critically by training—first on relatively light exercises, then,
as you develop your mental muscle, on more and more weighty ones.
You will know that you are making progress if you find yourself asking
such questions as, “What is this person trying to say?” “Are any
arguments being given for that position?” and “How would the
opposition respond to those arguments?” as you read and listen to
textbooks, political speeches, advertisements, and so on.
References
Barrow, R. H. The Romans. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1949.
Bell, Daniel. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social
Forecasting. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. Responsible
Science. National Academy Press, 1992.
Fenjves, Pablo. “Poor Man’s Coke.” Omni, vol. 5, no. 7 (April 1983): 39.
Fletcher, Frederick J. “Journalism in a Fish Bowl.” In Deadlines and
Diversity, edited by Valerie Alia, et al., pp. 140–150. Halifax:
Fernwood, 1996.
Critical Thinking
51
Ginzberg, Eli. “The Mechanization of Work.” Scientific American,
vol. 247, no. 3 (September 1982): 66–75.
Grant, George. Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian
Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1965; reprinted,
Agincourt, ON: Gage, in association with the Institute of Canadian
Studies at Carleton University, 1980.
“How to Stop Sag in Productivity: Experts’ Ideas.” U.S. News and World
Report. vol. 89, no. 4 (July 28, 1980): 57–58.
Hughes, Graham. “American Terror.” Review of Criminal Violence,
Criminal Justice, by Charles E. Silberman. The New York Review of
Books, vol. 25, nos. 21 and 22 (January 25, 1979): 3–4.
Hunter, J. F. M. Thinking about Sex and Love. Toronto: Macmillan,
1980.
Jameson, Sheilagh S. “Review of The Canadian Prairie West and the
Ranching Frontier, 1874–1924, by David H. Breen.” Alberta History,
vol. 31, no. 3 (Summer 1983): 39.
Kluge, Eike-Henner W. The Practice of Death. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1975.
Latz, Gil, et al. Study Guide for the Power of Place. New York and
Toronto: John Wiley and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
1996.
Lucretius. “On the Nature of Things—De Rerum Natura—Book III.”
Translated by H. A. J. Munro. As reprinted in The Stoic and
Epicurean Philosophers: The Complete Extant Writings of Epicurus,
Epictetus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius, edited by Whitney J. Oates,
pp. 115–36. New York: Modern Library, 1957.
“Neighbourly in Netville.” University Affairs, vol. 41, no. 10 (December
2000): 8.
Pawlick, Thomas. “The Cause and Its Effects.” Harrowsmith, vol. 7,
no. 2 (August/September 1982): 26–37.
Pirsig, Robert M. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An
Inquiry into Values. New York: William Morrow, 1974.
52
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1
Plato. “Phaedo.” Translated by Hugh Tredennick. In The Collected
Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters, edited by Edith Hamilton
and Huntington Cairns, pp. 40–98. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1961.
Plato. “Socrates’ Defense (Apology).” Translated by Hugh Tredennick.
In The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters, edited by
Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, pp. 3–26. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1961.
Rachels, James. “Euthanasia.” In Matters of Life and Death: New
Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, edited by Tom Regan,
pp. 28–66. New York: Random House, 1980.
Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, Vol. 1, Northern
Frontier, Northern Homeland. Ottawa: Lorimer, in association with
the Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, 1977.
Rothman, Stanley, and Charles Mosmann. Computers and Society: The
Technology and Its Social Implications. 2nd ed. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, 1976.
Rubenstein, Daniel Blake. Environmental Accounting for the
Sustainable Corporation. Westport, CT: Quorum, 1994.
Schell, Jonathan. The Fate of the Earth. New York: Knopf, 1982.
“Science and the Citizen: The DDT Ban.” Scientific American, vol. 222,
no. 1 (January 1970): 48–49.
Shaw, George Bernard. “Mrs. Warren’s Profession.” In the author’s
Selected Plays with Prefaces, [vol. 3], pp. 1–122. New York: Dodd,
Mead, [1948?].
Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf, 1971.
Stevens, Charles F. “The Neuron.” Scientific American, vol. 241, no. 3
(September 1979): 55–65.
Strunk, William. The Elements of Style. With revisions, an introduction,
and a chapter on writing by E. B. White. 3rd ed. New York:
Macmillan, 1979.
Tawney, R. H. Equality. With an introduction by Richard M. Titmuss.
London: Allen and Unwin, 1964.
Critical Thinking
53
Thomas, Lewis. “The Lives of a Cell.” New England Journal of Medicine,
vol. 284, no. 19 (May 13, 1971): 1082–1083. Reprinted in the
author’s The Lives of a Cell, pp. 3–5. New York: Viking, 1974.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public
Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971): 47–66.
Time. “Autopsy on the Warren Commission.” vol. 88, no. 12
(September 16, 1966): 46–47.
Tink, Donna. Review of Mirror Mirror: The Terror of Not Being Young,
by Elissa Melamed. Alberta Women, vol. 3, no. 1 (July–September
1983): 6.
Ture, Norman B. “The Economic Effects of Tax Changes: A Neoclassical
Analysis.” In Special Study on Economic Change, Vol. 4, Stagflation:
The Causes, Effects, and Solutions, studies prepared for the use of
the Special Study on Economic Change of the Joint Economic
Committee, Congress of the United States, pp. 316–47. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
van Lawick-Goodall, Jane. In the Shadow of Man. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1971.
Wachbroit, Robert. “Reliance and Reliability: The Problem of
Information on the Internet.” Report from the Institute for
Philosophy and Public Policy, vol. 20, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 9–15.
Wallace, James N. “Green Revolution Hits Double Trouble.” U.S. News
& World Report, vol. 89, no. 4 (July 28, 1980): 37–40.
“Warning: Living Alone is Dangerous to Your Health—Interview with
James J. Lynch, Psychologist.” U.S. News & World Report, vol. 88,
no. 25 (June 30, 1980): 47–48.
Weinstein, Claire E., et al. How to Help Your Children Achieve in School.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, U.S. Dept. of
Education, 1983.
Williams, John R., and Eric B. Beresford. “Physicians, Ethics and the
Allocation of Health Care Resources.” In Health Care Ethics in
Canada, edited by Françoise Baylis, et al., pp. 121–129. Toronto:
Harcourt Brace, 1995.
54
Philosophy 252 / Study Guide I, Unit 1