Podcast Lecture 6
What words or phrases are ambiguous?
What are the value and descriptive assumptions?
I would like to continue our discussion of the analysis of an argument by looking at two
more important aspects of an author’s written work. Chapter 4 in the ARQ text asks the
critical question, “What words or phrases are ambiguous?” and Chapter 5 addresses the
question, “What are the value and descriptive assumptions?”
Before we can react to an author’s argument we must understand the precise meaning of
important words and phrases. You cannot judge the strength of an argument if you do
not know for sure what the author means.
A word or phrase is ambiguous if the meaning is unclear. If an alternative definition of a
word or phrase would change the meaning of the discourse that word or phrase is
ambiguous.
Sometimes ambiguity is intentional. We see this in advertising. Consider this add for an
issue of “People” magazine. Read “People” to find out about the years most intriguing
personalities. Intriguing personalities is an ambiguous term, one that can have multiple
meanings. Intriguing personalities could refer to the year’s award winning authors. It
could refer to inventors, athletes, actors or numerous other individuals. As a consumer
you would want to know more about just what you would find in the magazine before
you could decide if you should purchase it. The English language is full of abstract terms
that can be ambiguous. Terms such as best, worst, more, less, happiness, freedom,
obscenity and violence are some examples. If an author uses terms such as these as a part
of his argument, it is his responsibility to define them adequately so the reader can
understand the precise meaning the author had in mind.
It is also important to know how to find ambiguity in an author’s argument.
One of the first steps you should take in determining ambiguity is to look for key terms in
the issue and reasoning structure. If the ambiguity is not part of the argument (the issue,
conclusion and reasons) then it is not important and does not warrant questioning or
further investigation.
Look for the kind of abstract terms that were mentioned earlier. These terms need further
explanation and clarification.
Another strategy is to reverse role play. Ask yourself, how would I define this term if I
disagreed with the author’s position.
Finally, look for instances when an alternative definition would change the meaning of
the discourse.
Once you have identified an ambiguity in an argument you must then try to determine it’s
meaning. The context in which the word or phrase is used will by your guide. There are
three elements to consider when using context to help you clarify meaning. First, think
about the author’s background and how it might influence the meaning assigned to the
phrase. Next, take into account the way the term is traditionally used in relation to the
controversy being discussed. And finally, consider the statements surrounding the
ambiguity for possible clues to the intended meaning.
As you search for the meaning of terms to clarify possible ambiguities you will probably
come into contact with three forms of definitions. Definitions can come in the form of
synonyms, examples and specific criteria.
For critical reading the best kind of definition will be the ones that provide the specific
criteria for usage. This will enable the reader to determine the meaning intended by the
author and use that information to decide whether or not to accept or reject the author’s
position. If the author does not provide this criteria the reader should ignore those
reasons containing the ambiguous terms.
The dictionary will often provide definitions in the form of synonyms and examples and
incomplete specifications of criteria. Although dictionaries can be helpful they may not
provide an adequate definition appropriate for the argument being made by the author.
While “welfare” may carry a negative connotation, “assistance to the poor” seems like an
honorable undertaking. Terms with similar definitions can evoke different reactions from
people. Terms and phrases have both denotative and connotative meanings. Denotative
meaning refers to the agreed upon explicit descriptive referents for use of the word, while
the connotative meaning refers to the emotional associations one has to a term or phrase.
As a critical thinker you must be careful to examine all ambiguous terms for both
meanings and not be fooled into accepting or rejecting an argument based on an
emotional reaction to the author’s language.
The next critical question that we will ask when critically analyzing an author’s argument
will be addressed in Chapter 5 of your ARQ text. What are the value and descriptive
assumptions?
Assumptions are the underlying unstated ideas or beliefs of the author that support the
explicit reasoning. These are the ideas that hold the argument together. You can not
fully understand the argument until you identify the underlying assumptions.
During our analysis of an argument we will be looking at two kinds of assumptions. The
first is the value assumption and the second is the descriptive assumption. Both types of
assumptions have certain qualities. Assumptions are: unstated ideas, taken for granted,
ideas that influence the conclusion, and necessary for the reasoning to make sense.
A list of common values includes concepts such as generosity, honesty, justice, tolerance,
and wisdom. These are examples of abstract ideas that someone believes are worthwhile
and strives to achieve. They represent standards of conduct that one endorses and
expects people to meet, and they are beliefs that greatly effect ones opinion on ethical
issues. Many people share these values. To find an author’s value assumption you must
determine the relative intensity with which the author holds specific values. A value
assumption is an implicit preference for one value over another in a particular context.
We use value preferences and value priorities as synonyms.
There are many situations in which pairs of values collide or conflict. When you
encounter one of these controversies you will be confronted with a value conflict.
For example consider the question: Should you tell your parents about your brother’s
drug habit? Inherent in this controversy is the value conflict of loyalty vs. honesty. If
you are aware of the problem and your brother has asked you to keep his confidence, you
may think that loyalty to your brother is the most important value. However, if you
believe that your parents’ help is needed to solve the problem and that they have a right
to know you may believe that honesty is the best policy in this situation.
Controversies such as Do you support the grading system? And Should divorces by easily
available represent the value conflicts of competition vs. cooperation and tradition vs.
novelty respectively. To take a stand on any of these issues you must make a value
judgment. In other words, you will uphold one value while depreciating the other. When
you recognize an author’s value preference you have found the value assumption in his
argument.
When reading arguments dealing with controversial issues you will need to ask yourself
what does the author value or think is important, and what does the opposition value or
think is important. Once you have identified the value conflict you can determine the
author’s value preference based on the position he takes. This is a challenging step in the
analysis process because the author does not state the value conflict or his value
preference. You will not find this written in the argument. You will have to infer it from
the reasoning and conclusion provided.
The following are some clues to help you identify value assumptions.
Think about who the author is and what he thinks is important. Consider similar
situations and the values present in those situations. Ask yourself what values are
important to the opposition, and refer to your list of common value conflicts provided in
your text for ideas.
Recognizing the author’s value assumptions will help you to understand the author’s
perspective and see all the dimensions of the argument. It is also a legitimate reason to
accept or reject an argument depending on whether or not your values and the author’s
values are compatible.
Reasons alone do not support the conclusion unless they are connected or relevant to the
conclusion. To find that connection or link is to locate assumptions. Assumptions are
ideas that, if true, enable us to say that certain conclusions are supported by the reasons
provided. When these ideas are descriptions of how the world is, they are called
descriptive assumptions..
Sometimes descriptive assumptions come from ambiguity in an argument. This kind of
descriptive assumption is called a definitional assumption. A definitional assumption is
when the author takes for granted that a term which can have multiple meanings will
mean the same thing to all people.
Now that you know what a descriptive assumption is, how are you going to find them in
an author’s argument?
The first strategy is to keep thinking about the gap between the conclusions and the
reasons. Ask yourself, “If this reason is true, what else must be true for the conclusion
to follow? “Suppose the reasons were true, is there any way in which the conclusion
nevertheless could be false?
Consider this example:
You will learn a lot from Professor Star.
His students all rave about his lectures.
The conclusion in this argument is that you will learn a lot from this teacher. The
reason given to support the conclusion is that the students all rave about his
lectures. In order for this reason to logically support this conclusion the author
must make a couple of assumptions. Let’s look at the reason in the argument: the
students all rave about his lectures. If this were true could the conclusion still be
false? What if the students were raving about his lectures because they are very
short and he dismisses class early every week? Or what if the students all rave
about his lectures because they are hysterically funny (but not necessarily on
point)? In these cases the reason could be true but would not necessarily support
the conclusion. For this argument to make sense the author must assume that the
students rave about the lectures because they are informative and engaging. He
must also assume that to learn a lot means to absorb material from a lecture, since
no other aspects of the course or teaching style is mentioned.
Another strategy is to identify with the writer by imagining that you were asked to defend
the conclusion based on the reasons provided. What would you be thinking? Or identify
with the opposition by thinking about why someone might disagree with the argument.
A third strategy is to learn more about the issue. The more that you know about the
subject the easier it will be to recognize the author’s perspective and that of the
opposition.
Finally, ask yourself, what must the author believe for the argument to make sense?
Consider this example:
We need to increase the money spent on AIDS education.
If we do so, it will greatly reduce the number of cases of AIDS.
What will need to happen for additional funds to help reduce the incidence of
AIDS? How must the money be spent? What groups of people should be
targeted for education? What must be true about the targeted population? These
are the questions that you will need to ask yourself to determine the author’s
descriptive assumptions. In this argument the author must believe that the money
will be spent in an effective manner with the education reaching members of
high-risk groups that are uninformed. The author must also assume that the
people who are educated will be willing and able to respond to the educational
message.
When analyzing an argument, you want to use your energy to focus on important aspects
of the argument. For this reason, do not waste time on the obvious assumptions that all
author’s take for granted. These include that the reasons are true, that the reasons and
conclusion are logically related, and that the reader has sufficient background knowledge
to understand the terminology and logic of the argument.
Now let’s practice this new skill by reading the following argument, identifying the
reasons and conclusion and finding the descriptive assumptions that link the two together.
Trials and executions should be televised. The public has the right to know what
is going on in our courts. Information about the judicial system needs to be more
widely disseminated.
The first step is to identify the argument. What is the main point that the author is trying
to make? How does the author support this point? In this argument the author’s
conclusion is that Trials and executions should be televised. The reasons are that the
public has a right to know what is going on in our courts and the information about the
judicial system needs to be more widely disseminated.
Now you must ask yourself, what must the author believe for these reasons to logically
support the conclusion? The descriptive assumptions in this argument are: The public
would watch televised trials and executions and that the best way to disseminate
information is through television. If these two things are not true the author’s argument
doesn’t make sense.
Let’s try a second practice example:
All teenagers should have the Hepatitis B vaccination starting at thirteen years
old. Hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted disease that can be fatal. It can also be
transmitted through IV drug use.
To identify the argument, you must ask the critical questions, What is the author’s
conclusion? and what are the reasons?
In this argument the author’s conclusion is that all teenagers should have the Hepatitis B
vaccination starting at age 13. The author’s reasons are that Hepatitis B is a sexually
transmitted disease that can be fatal, and that it can be transmitted through IV drug use.
What must the author believe for this reasoning to make sense? The descriptive
assumptions in this argument are: Teenagers are at risk for being sexually active
beginning at age 13, teenagers are at risk for using IV drugs beginning at age 13, and the
vaccination will protect them from the effects of the disease. These things must be true
for the author’s conclusion to logically follow from the reasons provided.