Phl137 - Critical Thinking
Contents
1 Introduction ... 5
1.1 The Art Of Critical Thinking ... 5
1.2 Exercises In Critical Thinking... 5
1.3 What Are Arguments? ... 7
1.4 Identifying Arguments And Their Components ... 8
1.5 Explanations Vs Arguments ... 10
2 Standardisation... 14
2.1 Propositions ... 14
2.1.1 Asserted propositions ... 14
2.2 Standardisation... 16
2.2.1 Linked and convergent premises ... 17
2.2.2 Paraphrasing implicit premises and conclusions ... 18
2.3 Subarguments ... 19
2.4 Checking Your Standardisation ... 23
3 Counter Arguments ... 27
3.1 Arguments And Counterarguments ... 27
3.2 Noting Direct Responses ... 29
3.3 Counterconsiderations ... 31
3.4 Validity And Invalidity: Introduction ... 32
3.5 Necessary And Sufficient Conditions ... 33
3.6 Common Forms Of Conditional Proposition ... 34
3.6.1 "All/ Every / Any Fs are Gs" ... 34
3.6.2 "Only Fs are Gs"- ... 34
3.6.3 "If A then B" ... 35
3.6.4 A Only if B (Only A if B) ... 35
3.7 Checking Necessary And Sufficient Conditions ... 36
3.7.1 Paraphrasing ... 36
3.7.2 Diagrams ... 37
3.7.3 Ambiguity... 38
3.8 Counterexamples... 39
4 Conditional Arguments ... 41
4.1 Valid Conditional Argument Forms ... 41
4.1.1 Affirming the sufficient condition ... 41
4.2 Invalid Conditional Argument Forms ... 43
4.2.1 Affirming the necessary condition ... 43
4.2.2 Denying the sufficient condition ... 44
4.3 Examples ... 45
4.4 Using Diagrams To Check Your Answers ... 47
4.5 Validity (Deductive Validity) ... 48
4.6 Deductive And Inductive Arguments ... 50
4.6.1 Deductive and inductive arguments: summary ... 51
4.7 A Note On Types Of Reasoning... 52
5 Inductive arguments ... 53
5.1 Overview ... 53
5.2 Inductive Generalisations ... 53
5.2.1 Components Of An Inductive Generalisation ... 54
5.2.2 Evaluation Of Inductive Generalisations ... 55
5.3 Statistical Generalisations ... 56
5.3.1 Evaluating Statistical Generalisations ... 56
5.3.2 Evaluating Samples ... 57
5.3.3 Evaluating Statistical Research Methods ... 60
5.3.4 What was tested? What questions were asked? ... 62
5.3.5 Do The Statistical Results Justify The Conclusion? ... 63
5.3.6 Example: ... 64
5.3.7 Statistical Syllogisms ... 66
5.4 Inference To The Best Explanation ... 67
5.4.1 Inference To The Best Explanation In Scientific Reasoning ... 68
5.5 Causal Arguments ... 69
5.5.1 Correlations ... 69
5.5.2 When Can A Cause Be Inferred From A Correlation? ... 72
5.5.3 Is The Causal Explanation The Best Explanation?... 72
5.5.4 What Makes One Explanation Better Than Another? ... 74
5.5.5 Is The Causal Conclusion Accurate? ... 75
5.5.6 Discussion exercise ... 75
5.6 Analogical Reasoning ... 76
5.6.1 Simple Inductive Analogical Arguments ... 76
5.6.2 Components Of An Argument From Analogy ... 77
5.6.3 Evaluating Arguments From Analogy ... 78
5.6.4 Uses Of Analogical Reasoning... 79
5.6.5 When Is A Single Analogue A Sufficient Sample? ... 80
6 Clarifying arguments... 88
6.1 Introduction ... 88
6.2 Summarising An Argument ... 89
6.2.1 Examples ... 90
6.3 Persuasive Language And Other Rhetorical Devices ... 92
6.3.1 Emotional charge ... 93
6.3.2 Euphemism ... 93
6.3.3 Loaded terms ... 94
6.3.4 Suggestions of certainty or doubt ... 94
6.3.5 The appropriateness of rhetoric in a context ... 95
6.3.6 EXERCISE - emotionally charged language ... 96
6.4 Text For Analysis ... 96
6.4.1 Summary of Text... 96
6.4.2 Summary ... 97
6.4.3 Uses of language ... 97
7 Broad standardisation ... 99
7.1 Close Standardisation And Broad Standardisation ... 99
7.2 Text For Analysis ... 100
7.2.1 Standardisation ... 100
7.2.2 Subpremises ... 102
7.3 The Acceptability Of Premises ... 105
7.3.1 Common knowledge ... 105
7.3.2 The importance of common knowledge in constructing a broad standardisation ... 106
8 Evaluating inferences ... 108 8.1 Introduction ... 108 8.2 Suppressed Assumptions ... 108 8.3 Fallacies Overview ... 111 8.4 Fallacies Of Clarity ... 112 8.4.1 Ambiguity... 112
8.4.2 The Fallacy Of Equivocation... 113
8.4.3 Vagueness ... 114
8.5 Fallacies Of Vacuity ... 116
8.5.1 Question-Begging Arguments... 116
8.5.2 Circular Arguments ... 116
8.6 Fallacies Of Relevance ... 116
8.6.1 Straw Person Fallacy ... 117
8.6.2 Appeals To Authority ... 117
8.6.4 Ad Hominem Arguments ... 119
8.7 Evaluation ... 120
9 Sample text evaluation ... 127
Notes on writing your text evaluation ... 127
1 INTRODUCTION
Welcome to PHL 137, Critical Thinking, and welcome to the course website. This website will be an important resource for this unit. It provides the course notes, as well as exercises, self tests and
communication facilities. Information about the website including advice on the use of the online resources available for this unit are to be found in "How to use this website" from the homepage.
1.1 The Art Of Critical Thinking
We all engage in reasoning everyday. We engage in reasoning whenever we argue with each other, evaluate what we read and hear, and consider the evidence for and against views or ideas. So it is not something that’s foreign or alien. But reasoning is something that you can get better at doing. It is a skill or an art. Like any skill, it requires a bit of knowledge and practice. Lots and lots of practice.
Our aim in this course is to teach you the fundamentals of good reasoning. We will illustrate these fundamentals by looking at reasoning from newspapers, journals, advertisements, textbooks, and some philosophical works. By the end of the course you will know the difference between good reasoning and bad reasoning. You will be able to detect fallacies and bad reasoning in others. You will become more clear-headed and logical in your own thinking. The skills you acquire through doing this course will stand you in good stead whatever course you take at Macquarie and whatever career your pursue afterwards.
Even though reasoning is something we all do, it can be quite difficult at times to do correctly. We are all prone to making mistakes in reasoning. Indeed, there is an entire branch of psychology which is dedicated to examining the common patterns of illogical and fallacious thinking. To illustrate the difficulty of correct reasoning I want to consider two reasoning tasks that have been much discussed by psychologists. The two tasks show how easy it is to fall into the traps of fallacious reasoning.
1.2 Exercises In Critical Thinking
The card selection taskYou are presented with four cards as below. One half of each card is masked. The other half is blank or has a circle. Your job is to work out which of the masked cards you need to see in order to answer the follow question decisively:
FOR THESE CARDS, IS IT TRUE THAT IF THERE IS A CIRCLE ON THE LEFT THERE IS A CIRCLE ON THE RIGHT? You have only one opportunity to make this decision. You must not assume that you can inspect the cards one at a time. Name those cards which it is absolutely essential to see -- ie that you absolutely must see to answer the question.
Before you read any further, pause to consider what you think is the right answer. What do most people say?
The most common answer is that you should see cards (a) and (c); the next most common answer is that you need only see (a).
The correct answer:
The correct answer is: you must see (a) and (d). Let’s consider each card in turn.
You must see (a) because if the right-hand side of (a) has no circle, the conditional is shown to be false.
You need not see (b) because it has no circle on the left-land side and so whatever is hidden on the right-hand side has no bearing on the truth of the conditional.
You need not see (c) because what is hidden on the left-hand side does not bear decisively on the truth of the conditional, does not have the potential to decisively show the truth or falsity of the conditional. You must see (d) because if the left-hand side of (d) has a circle, the conditional is shown to be false.
The original experiment by the British psychologist Peter Wason is described in the article:
Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273-281. For a good review of the theoretical psychological discussions see:
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
The Monty Hall problem
This problem is named after the presenter on the American TV show Let’s Make a Deal.
On the table are three identical boxes, each with a lid and also a neat pile of ten dollar bills. This game is to be repeated many times. Let’s say I’m running the show.
Here are the rules of the game. First, you leave the room and while you are out, I put a ten dollar bill in one of the boxes. I then close the boxes. I know in which box the money is, but you don’t. Now I invite you back into the room.
Each game is divided into two distinct phases. In the first, by doing no more than pointing, you indicate your choice among the three boxes, which remain closed.
As you have made your choice, I open another box, one of the two remaining boxes. That box will be empty -- remember that I know in which box the ten dollar bill is. Having seen one empty box (the one I just
opened), you now face two closed boxes, one of which must contain the ten dollar bill.
Now comes the second phase. I now offer you the chance to stay with your first choice, or to switch your choice to the other closed box, the one you failed to choose the first time round. After this second phase, whatever is in the box you have chosen is what you win.
This game can be repeated countless times, and each time, if your second choice is right, you win ten dollars. You leave the room and the game starts all over again.
Now the question is:
As a general rule, are you better off sticking to your first choice or switching? Does it make any difference? Before you read any further, pause to answer these questions.
The correct answer:
A common thought is that in the second phase of the game the probability of choosing the box with the ten dollar bill is 50/50 and so there is no reason to switch.
But this is wrong: it pays as a general rule to switch. To see this suppose that your original choice was the right one. Then when I open the box, for you to switch will certainly penalise you. If, on the other hand, your first choice was an empty box, you will certainly gain by switching. How often do you think your first choice will be correct (and thus penalising you if you switch)? One in three times. And how often will you choose an empty box (and thus be necessarily better off switching)? Two times out of three. So it pays as a general rule to switch boxes in the second phase.
This problem has been so much discussed that there are a number of websites devoted to it. This website, for example, has a simulator so you can see what would happen if you were to play this game 100 or 1000 times:
http://www.grand-illusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm
1.3 What Are Arguments?
Our aim in this course is to learn how to analyse and evaluate arguments. It is necessary, before we can engage in such analysis, to have a clear idea of what an argument is, and how passages containing arguments can be identified. Consider the following passages:
(3a) There are some grey shapes under the water. There must be some dolphins there.
(3b) Either the butler or the gardener committed the murder. The gardener has a good alibi. So the butler must have done it.
Each of these passages contains an argument. What distinguishes an argument from other kinds of discourse is that an argument attempts to convince its audience of some point, by citing reasons for believing it. Argument (3a) aims to convince you that there are dolphins under the water. Argument (3b) attempts to convince you that the butler did it.
The word "argument" is used in ordinary language to mean a variety of things, but in the sense we are interested in , an "argument" involves a process of reasoning, or inference, and the attempt by one person to convince another or others of some claim by providing evidence, or reasons for believing it. Whether the argument is written or spoken, the person or people who put the argument forward will be referred to as the "author of the argument" or simply the "arguer". The person or people the arguer is attempting to convince will be referred to as the "audience".
1.4 Identifying Arguments And Their Components
You can identify a passage as containing an argument, if the purpose of that passage is to convince you of some claim, by providing reasons to believe it.
Identifying an argument
Does the passage attempt to convince an audience of some claim, by providing reasons for believing it? If so, it the passage an argument.
Premises and conclusions
Any argument will contain premises, and a conclusion. The best way to identify the premises and conclusion of an argument is to ask yourself what the author of the argument is trying to convince you of: What does the author want you to believe? The point about which the argument is trying to convince you is the conclusion. The reasons or pieces of evidence the author offers to convince you of that conclusion are the premises.
Indicator words
In identifying arguments, and drawing out their structure, look out for "indicator words." These are words and phrases which often appear in arguments, which function as cues to alert you to the presence of an argument in a passage, and to help identify its premises and conclusion.
Conclusions, for example, will often be signalled by words such as "therefore" and "so", while premises will often be introduced by words such as "because" or "since".
Premises are often indicated by: for, since, because, on the grounds that
Conclusions are often indicated by: thus, therefore, so, hence
In the following arguments, the conclusions are underlined. Note the occurrence of premise and conclusion indicators, and confirm that the rest of the passage does appear to be intended to support the conclusion, and give reasons for believing it:
(4a) Acid rain is caused by burning of unclean fuel such as brown coal. Therefore the use of brown coal endangers forests.
(4b) You needn't worry about the dangers of nuclear energy, because much stricter safety precautions have been implemented since the Chernobyl disaster.
(4c) Open fireplaces are very inefficient. It follows that their popularity is aesthetic, rather than practical. Also look out for words such as "should" and "must". These will frequently occur in conclusions, since they are used to persuade or convince the audience that some action is required.
For example:
(4d) Eventually, the world's oil will run out. Governments must invest more heavily in finding alternate fuel sources.
(4e) The use of leaded petrol should be banned. The use of leaded petrol is harmful to the environment, and any car can be converted to run on unleaded petrol.
These are hints, rather than rules. Not every occurrence of these words will indicate a premise or conclusion. Once you think you have found the conclusion, always reread the passage to confirm that reasons or evidence are given to support that conclusion.
Identifying arguments without premise or conclusion indicators
Not all arguments contain premise or conclusion indicators. These arguments can still be recognised by thinking about the relationship between different parts of the passage. If the passage involves an attempt to persuade you to accept some claim, and gives reasons or evidence to persuade you, then it is an argument. The following examples are arguments which do not contain any argument indicators. Their conclusions are underlined. To confirm that the underlined part is the conclusion, try reading the argument back, by reading the rest of the passage first, then "therefore", and then the conclusion. This should sound like a reasonable argument.
(4f) CFCs, which were a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect, have been banned. The progress of global warming is likely to be slower than it otherwise would have been.
(4g) This refrigerator does not produce CFCs. CFCs were banned some years ago, and this is a new fridge. (4h) This fly spray advertises itself as CFC free, but that claim, though true, is completely spurious now - No sprays contain CFCs!
In each case, note that there are premises given to convince you of the conclusion. If there is not a point in the passage which for which the other points offer support, then it is probably not an argument.
Examples
Do the following passages contain arguments? If so, what is the conclusion?
(i) If asylum seekers are returned to their home countries, many of them will be punished - they may be jailed, or even killed. But if we allow everyone who arrives here illegally to stay, then we will set a precedent which will result in more and more people coming here - even those who may not have pressing reasons to leave their own countries. And if we allow illegal immigrants to stay, then we will be disadvantaging those who are trying to immigrate through the proper channels.
(i) is not an argument. There is not one point which is supported by other points in the passage (ii) Both the major parties have promised tax cuts, in one form or another, if they win the next federal election. But surveys have shown that most Australians would be willing to sacrifice tax cuts to allow better funding for essential government services such as health and education. This just shows that neither side of parliament understands the wishes and priorities of the Australian public.
(ii) is an argument. Its conclusion is "Neither side of parliament understands the wishes and priorities of the Australian public". We are given reasons to believe this : both parties are planning to offer tax cuts, but tax cuts are not a priority for the Australian people.
(iii) There has been a significant outcry about the courts handing down lenient sentences to serious offenders, and the state Government has now acted to promote tougher sentences for serious crimes. But there are concerns that such intervention runs the risk of jeopardising the independence of the judiciary.
(iii) is not an argument. There is not one point which is supported by other points in the passage.
1.5 Explanations Vs Arguments
It is easy to confuse arguments with explanations, because they use many of the same indicator words. The difference between an argument and an explanation is best understood in terms of how the rest of the passage relates to the main point:
An argument makes a claim and gives reasons for you to believe it, while an explanation gives you reasons why a particular claim is true. To work out whether something is an argument or an explanation, begin by identifying the main point of the passage, and the claim which is being made in that main point:
If the rest of the passage tries to convince you THAT the claim is true, it is probably an argument.
If the rest of the passage tells you WHY the claim is true, it is probably an explanation.
Consider, for example, the following sentences:
(5a) Queen Elizabeth the First died in 1603, because she was old.
(5b) Queen Elizabeth the First died in 1603. It says so in this history book.
The main point in each sentence is that Queen Elizabeth the First died in 1603. In each case, this is "backed up" in some sense by what follows. But while (5a) is best understood as an explanation (is aim is to tell you why Queen Elizabeth I died when she did), (5b) is best understood as an argument, since it offers evidence which might convince you that it is true that she died in 1603.
What about these sentences?
(5c) The volcano must have erupted because there is new lava on its slopes. (5d) The volcano erupted because there was a build-up of magma along a fissure.
The first sentence gives reasons to convince you that the volcano has erupted, so it is an argument. The second sentence gives the causes of the eruption, so it is an explanation.
Other tests for arguments and explanations
Which are you more inclined to believe - the main point, or the rest of the passage?
The point of an argument is to try to convince you of something, by showing you that it follows from things you already believe. For that reason, the premises of an argument should be at least as likely to be believed as the conclusion. There is no point in trying to convince you of something you don't believe by showing that it follows from other things that you don't believe. If the main point of the passage is something which is
unlikely to be believed unless reasons are given, then, it is probably an argument, intended to convince you by providing such reasons.
An explanation, however, will not try to convince you of its main point, so very often the main point is something the reader or audience is already likely to accept. The author will assume that the main point is accepted, and go on to describe its causes.
So:
If the main point is less likely to be believed than the rest of the passage, it is probably an argument.
If the main point is something which the audience is already likely to believe, it is probably an explanation.
Which of the following is an argument, and which is an explanation?
(5e) The Blue Mountains appear blue because of a mist produced by the eucalypt forests.
(5f) Sydney's urban sprawl is unlikely to slow down much in the near future and a lot of people already commute from the Blue Mountains to the city, so within twenty years the blue mountains will be considered part of the Sydney metropolitan area.
(5e) is an explanation, because it makes a point which an audience would be likely to accept, "the Blue Mountains appear blue", and explains why that it the case. It suggests a cause of this phenomenon. (5f) is an argument, because it makes a relatively surprising claim, that within twenty years the Blue
Mountains wll be considered part of the Sydney metropolitan area, and gives reasons to believe that claim. Applying the Principle of Charity
Sometimes it still won't be clear whether a passage is an argument or an explanation. Perhaps it looks as though it could be interpreted either way.
The Principle of Charity says that when you interpret a passage, you should try to be fair to the author's intentions, and you should interpret the passage in the way that makes the most sense. So, if a passage would make a good explanation but a bad argument, you should assume that it is meant to be an explanation. If it would be better interpreted as an argument, interpret it as an argument. For example, the sentence:
(5g) Alfred must have had a car accident because he was talking on his mobile phone.
would make a reasonable explanation of why Alfred crashed -- the fact that he was talking on his mobile is a cause of the crash. It would, however, make a poor argument, as the fact that Alfred had been talking on his phone would not convince anyone that he had a car accident. The fact that he was talking on the phone does not provide any evidence that he had an accident. So, applying the principle of charity, we would assume the person who asserted the sentence above meant this to be an explanation.
By contrast:
(5h) Alfred must have had a car accident, because the front of his car is badly dented.
would not explain why he crashed. The evidence about the state of the front of Alfred's car could, however, be used as evidence to convince someone that Alfred had had an accident. So by the principle of charity, we should interpret this as an argument.
Argument and explanation?
Some passages you come across will have elements of both. Once you decide what the main point is, however, there should only be one way to interpret the passage.
For example:
(5i) Alfred had a car accident because he was talking on his mobile phone. So using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous.
As we saw above, the first sentence is an explanation. But here, the main point is the second sentence. The first sentence, which reports the cause of Alfred's accident, is given as evidence to convince you that "using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous". So the passage is an argument.
It is also possible for an explanation to be given as a premise in an argument. If someone is trying to convince you of a rather unbelievable claim, then the fact that there could be an explanation might help make the claim more plausible, and therefore make the argument more convincing. For example:
(5j) The CIA faked Elvis' death. People still keep seeing him in hamburger shops, and that wouldn't happen if he were dead. A possible explanation for the CIA's action is that they wanted him to go undercover to investigate money laundering in Las Vegas casinos.
The final sentence suggests an explanation for the CIA's action in faking Elvis' death, but the point of the passage as a whole is to convince you that they did. The fact that there is an explanation for why the CIA might want to fake Elvis' death is meant to make the rather outlandish conclusion more acceptable. So the passage is an argument, the suggested explanation is supposed to make you more willing to accept the conclusion, so it functions as a premise in the argument.
In summary, then:
Tests for arguments vs explanations
1. If the passage gives evidence for the main point, it's probably an argument. If it lists causes of the main point, then it's probably an explanation.
2. If you are not already inclined to believe the main point, it's probably an argument. If you are already inclined to believe the main point, it's probably an explanation. 3. By the principle of charity, you should interpret a passage so it makes the most sense. So if it makes a good argument but a weak explanation, treat it as an argument, and if it makes a weak argument but a good explanation, treat it as an explanation.
Examples
For each of the following passages determine whether it is an argument or an explanation or neither. (i) The pilot was forced to make an emergency landing in the Atlantic, because both the plane's engines had malfunctioned. Cases like this should lead aviation officials to reconsider the use of twin engine aeroplanes for long flights across water.
This passage contains an explanation - the first sentence explains why the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing in the Atlantic, but this is used as a reason to convince the audience that aviation officials should reconsider the use of twin engine aeroplanes for long flights across water. So the passage overall is an argument, since it provides evidence to convince its audience of its main point.
(ii) Guarana is a highly concentrated source of caffeine, and caffeine can be harmful to children, so confectionary and drinks containing guarana are labelled with warnings stating that they should not be consumed by children under 15.
This passage is best understood as an explanation of why these products are labelled with warnings. It would be inaccurate to consider this as an argument, because the facts that guarana is a concentrated source of caffeine and caffeine can be harmful to children would not convince you that they have warning labels.
SELF TEST AND EXERCISES
At the top of this page, in the action menu, you will notice a link to a "Self test". This is a short set of multiple choice questions to test your understanding of the material covered in these notes. There will be a self test available for each week's course notes.
Try these questions now, and read over the notes again if there's anything you don't know.
At this point it is also a good idea to try your hand at the exercises in "Week 1" of the Exercises section on the course website. After you have tried each question, you will be given an explanation of the correct answer.
SKILLS FOR WEEK 1 You should be able to:
Identify whether a passage contains an argument, an explanation or neither.
2 STANDARDISATION
(Week2)To allow the clear analysis of arguments, we will be adopting a method of representing their structure known as standardisation. Standardisation requires us first to identify the premises and conclusion of an argument, and then to give a clear, unambiguous representation of its form.
Before we can begin to construct standardisations, it is necessary to have a clearer understanding of the components of an argument. We must begin by identifying the premises and conclusion -- but what sort of things are they? How do we decide what to include as part of a given premise? How do we know what is essential and inessential?
2.1
Propositions
In order to determine the structure of an argument we need to be able to identify the propositions out of which the argument is composed. A proposition is the content or meaning of a sentence. It is the kind of thing which is capable of being true or false. (not be confused with premise)
Propositions can be simple or complex. A simple proposition is one which expresses one and only one complete thought .
For example, the sentence expresses a simple proposition:
(1a) John Howard is the PM of Australia. On the other hand, the following sentence:
(1b) Although the PM is the government leader, he can be voted out of power by the people, which is a safeguard against tyranny.is a complex proposition, since it contains several simple propositions: The PM is the government leader.
The PM can be voted out of power by the people.
The fact that a PM can be voted out of power is a safeguard against tyranny.
2.1.1 Asserted propositions
However, note that the simple propositions contained in a sentence may not all be asserted by the speaker of the sentence. When someone asserts a proposition, they are presenting that proposition as true. For example, consider the sentences:
(1c) If it rains tomorrow, the match will be cancelled.
(1d) Either it will rain tomorrow or the match will be cancelled.
These sentences involve the simple propositions: It will rain tomorrow. The match will be cancelled but in neither case is the speaker presenting these propositions as true. The speaker is not claiming either that it will definitely rain tomorrow, nor that the match will definitely be cancelled. In the sentences (1c) and (1d) above, the speaker is asserting a complex proposition, which claims that a certain relationship holds between the simple propositions. The simple propositions themselves are not asserted.
To work out whether a proposition is asserted, ask yourself: Is the speaker presenting this proposition as true?
If not, it is not being asserted
Look out for sentence forms such as "either... or..." and "If... then ...". These will contain propositions which are not separately asserted.
Examples
What are the simple proposition contained in the following sentences? What are the propositions asserted? (i) Society is best served by educated people, so cutting spending on education is wrong.
A: There are two simple propositions: "Society is best served by educated people" and "Cutting spending on education is wrong". Both are asserted, since the speaker is claiming that both these things are true.
(ii) If you turn left at the corner, you will see the garage.
A: There are two simple propositions "You will turn left" and "You will see the garage", but the speaker is not claiming that these propositions individually are true. The only proposition asserted is the complex one: "If you turn left at the corner, you will see the garage".
(iii) Either the new PM will live in Canberra or, if she is of John Howard's mind, she will live in Sydney.
A: There are three simple propositions: "The new PM will live in Canberra", "The new PM is of John Howard's mind" and "She will live in Sydney". The only proposition asserted is the complex one: "Either the new PM will live in Canberra, or, if she is of John Howard's mind, she will live in Sydney".
The premises of an argument and its conclusion will each be a simple or complex proposition which is
asserted. In analysing the structure of the argument, then, we do not need to isolate every simple
proposition which is contained in the argument. We need to identify the propositions which are asserted.
For example, consider the argument:
(1e) Either university funding will be increased or class sizes will continue to grow, and university funding will not be increased. Therefore class sizes will continue to grow.
The premises here are contained in the first sentence. In this sentence two separate propositions are asserted:
Either university funding will be increased or class sizes will continue to grow. University funding will not be increased.
These should be treated as two separate premises, but should not be broken down any further. Although the first premise contains two separate propositions: "University funding will be increased" and "Class sizes will continue to grow, " these are not both asserted, so they cannot be treated as separate premises.
The three propositions asserted in the argument, then, are:
1. Either university funding will be increased or class sizes will continue to grow. 2. University funding will not be increased.
3. Class sizes will continue to grow.
The first two are premises, the third is the conclusion.
(1f) Unfortunately, we won't be able to stop the flooding. We could only stop the flooding if we had a way of damming the river, but, when you really think about it, there is no way we can dam the river.
When looking for propositions, we are just looking for the factual content of what is being asserted. Identifying the premises will therefore sometimes involve leaving out inessential features of the argument. The three propositions asserted in this argument are:
We won't be able to stop the flooding.
We could only stop the flooding if we had a way of damming the river. There is no way we can dam the river.
In this case, the first proposition is the conclusion, and the other two are given as premises in support of that conclusion.
2.2
Standardisation
It will help us understand the structure of an argument if we can represent it in a standardised form. A standardisation of an argument identifies the premises and conclusion of the argument, while disregarding all its inessential features. It also identifies the evidential relationship between premises and conclusion by a conventional representation.
We will be using one method for representing standardised arguments in this course. (It is, with a few slight variations, that developed in the book Thinking Clearly by LeBlanc.) Many other texts use a pictorial method of standardisation, but the numerical method has the advantage of making the structure of an argument unambiguous in text form, without requiring a diagram. We will, however, sometimes use diagrams as an additional aid.
Consider the following argument:
(2a) Anyone who had any sense would agree that capital punishment is wrong. It should be obvious that it unjustly exacts a punishment that is disproportionate to whatever crime has been committed. It's also just plain obvious how it brutalises a society that practices it. There's a lot of excess verbiage in this argument. Stripped down to its essentials, the argument asserts three propositions: Capital punishment is wrong. Capital punishment unjustly exacts a disproportionate punishment.
It brutalises a society that practices it. First, we need to identify the premises and conclusion. To identify the conclusion, think about what the argument is supposed to convince you of. In this case, the conclusion of the argument is "captial punishment is wrong." The other propositions are given as premises: they are reasons supposed to convince you of the conclusion.
To standardise the argument, we number the premises consecutively and put a C next to the conclusion, which is listed after the premises.
1: Capital punishment unjustly exacts a disproportionate punishment. 2: It brutalises a society that practices it.
C: Capital punishment is wrong.
Now let's consider another example:
(2b) The book will not be published. It is too long, and it is too dull, and the people it is written about would undoubtedly sue if it ever went to print.
This author of the argument intends to convince you that the book will not be published. The argument has three premises supporting its conclusion, and would be standardised as:
1: The book is too long. 2: The book is too dull.
3: The people the book is written about would undoubtedly sue if it ever went to print. C: The book will not be published.
2.2.1 Linked and convergent premises
In the arguments we have considered so far, the premises been convergent, which means that they independently support the conclusion. But sometimes the premises must work together to support a conclusion. Such premises are said to be linked.
If two premises are linked, they are interdependent and work together to support the conclusion. If two premises are convergent, they work independently of one another to support the
conclusion.
To see the difference consider the following arguments: Argument 2c: with convergent premises
I'm not going to lend you the money. If I lent you money you wouldn't return it, and anyway, I'm broke. This is standardised as:
1. If I lent you money you wouldn't return it. 2. I'm broke.
C. I'm not going to lend you the money.
Argument 2d: with linked premises:
God must exist because the world shows signs of design and we know that a designed object can't exist without a designer.
1. The world shows signs of design.
2. A designed object cannot exist without a designer. C. A designer God must exist.
In argument (2c), the premises are convergent, since they offer independent support for the conclusion. Premise 1 on its own would support the conclusion, and premise 2 on its own would support the conclusion. There are two separate inferences or lines of argument in support of the conclusion.
In argument (2d), however, the premises are linked, since they must be taken together to support the conclusion. Neither premise on its own would provide a reason to believe the conclusion. There is only one inference made in support of the conclusion, from the two premises jointly.
While the numbering system of representing standardised arguments does not bring out the difference, the pictorial system does. The difference between the types of argument can be represented thus:
An argument can also have a combination of linked and convergent premises. For example:
(2e) Jones is likely to vote for the National Party, since he is a farmer, and the Nationals are known for putting farmers' interests first. Besides, he told me that he would vote for the Nationals
1: Jones is a farmer.
2: The National Party is known for putting farmers' interests first. 3: Jones told me that he was going to vote for the Nationals. C: Jones is likely to vote for the National Party.
In this argument, premise 1 and 2 would have to be linked, since they are interdependent (neither 1 nor 2 would give us a reason to believe C without the other), but premise 3 offers an independent piece of evidence for the conclusion. This could be represented by the following diagram:
It is important to remember that the premises and conclusion of an argument should always express propositions. If they are not in an appropriate form in the original argument, they will need to be paraphrased. Consider the following argument:
(2f) Well, somebody broke the vase, and your son Billy is the only person who has been near it. So who do you think did it?
The conclusion here is stated as a rhetorical question, instead of a proposition. (Note that a question cannot be a proposition, since it is not the sort of thing which can be true or false). The proposition which is implicitly being concluded, however, is clear. The argument could be standardised as:
1: Somebody broke the vase.
2: Your son Billy is the only person who has been near it. C: Your son Billy broke the vase.
Paraphrasing can sometimes also be helpful when the premises or conclusions are given as propositions, but are stated in the argument in a way that is unclear out of context. For example, how would you standardise the following argument?
(2g) You're only allowed to enter if you know the secret handshake. But you don't. So that's that.
Strictly speaking, we do have three propositions asserted here, but rather than standardising the argument as
1: You're only allowed to enter if you know the secret handshake. 2: You don't.
C: That's that.
It would be much clearer to paraphrase, to get the following standardisation: 1: You're only allowed to enter if you know the secret handshake.
2: You don't know the secret handshake. C: You're not allowed to enter.
Always try to standardise the argument so that the meaning of the constituent propositions is clear.
2.3
Subarguments
The arguments we have seen so far have been fairly simple, because all their premises, whether linked or convergent, provided support for a single conclusion. In many arguments, premises are given not only to support the main conclusion, but to provide support for other premises. An argument the conclusion of which is not the main conclusion is a subargument.
Consider the following argument:
(3a) Jones is the only suspect without an alibi. Therefore, Jones is the bank robber.
1 Jones is the only suspect without an alibi. C Jones is the bank robber.
Now consider the following slightly more complicated argument:
(3a-i) Jones is the only suspect without an alibi, since all the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party. Therefore, Jones is the bank robber.
We now have a new premise "All the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party" to include in the standardisation. But what is its relationship to the existing premise 1? Is it linked? Convergent?
In fact, it is neither. The relationship between the new premise and premise 1 is suggested by the occurrence of the premise indicator "since". What follows a premise indicator is often a premise or reason for what precedes it, which suggests that the new premise is a premise in support of 1, or a reason to convince you of the truth of 1: The arguer tells us that all the other suspects were at the garden party, to convince us that they all have alibis.
In this argument, premise 1 functions as a premise, but also as the conclusion of a subargument. (The premises and conclusions in subarguments are sometimes referred to as subpremises and subconclusions, when it is important to distinguish them from those of the main argument, which can be referred to as the main premises, and main conclusion.)
In a numerical standardisation, the convention is that main premises will be given the numbers 1, 2, 3 and so on.
The number assigned to a subpremise will begin with the number of the premise it supports, followed by a full stop, and a number of its own, to distinguish it from other subpremises supporting the same premise: For example:
Premises supporting 1, will be 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 ... Premises supporting 2 will be 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 ...
In the argument [1b], then, the new premise can be numbered 1.1, to indicate that it is a subpremise supporting 1.
Just as numbered premises are listed above the conclusion in the standardisation of an argument, so we now list any subpremise above the premise it supports. The standardisation of the argument now looks like this:
1.1 All of the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party 1: Jones is the only suspect without an alibi
C: Jones is the bank robber. Levels of premises
Subpremises may, in turn, be supported by further subpremises.
In the previous argument, for example, further evidence might be given to convince you of the truth of 1.1. For example if a premise were included asserting that "The police have photographs of the other suspects taken at the Queen's garden party", the role of that new premise would be to convince you that 1.1 ("All of the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party") is true. That new premise, then, would be 1.1.1. 1.1.1 The police have photographs of the other suspects taken at the Queen's garden party
1.1 All of the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party 1: Jones is the only suspect without an alibi
C: Jones is the bank robber.
A series of premises or subpremises will be said to be on the same level if they directly support the same conclusion. In the argument standardised above, each of the premises has a different level.
There is, of course, no limit to the number of levels of subpremises which may occur in an argument. Wherever a premise occurs, its premise number is determined by what it is a premise in support of. If it is in support of a premise numbered X, however complex X is, then it should be called X.1 or X.2 or X.3 .... We will consider a few more premises, in a longer version of this argument.
(3a-ii) Jones is the only suspect without an alibi, since all the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party. The police have photographs of the other suspects at the Queen's garden party, and besides, the Queen says they were there, and she wouldn't lie. Anyway, Jones confessed. Therefore, Jones is the bank robber.
So far, we have the standardisation:
1.1.1 The police have photographs of the other suspects taken at the Queen's garden party 1.1 All of the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party
1: Jones is the only suspect without an alibi C: Jones is the bank robber.
and we now have three more pieces of information to include: The Queen says the other suspects were at the garden party. The Queen wouldn't lie.
Jones confessed.
To decide on the role of each of these statements, look back to the argument as we have standardised it so far, and ask whether any of the new statements give us reason to believe any of the premises already occuring in the standardisation.
No evidence is given to support 1.1.1 ( we are given no reason to believe that the police have the photos described), but what about 1.1? Are we given new reasons to believe that all of the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party?
In fact we are given two linked reasons: The Queen says they were there, and she wouldn't lie. The number "1.1.1" has already been used, so these premises will be "1.1.2" and "1.1.3".
Note that these two new premises must be linked to each other, because we are to believe the other suspects were there because the Queen said they were AND she wouldn't have been lying.
The other statement we have not yet added, "Jones confessed", is a main premise, since it is given as a reason to believe the main conclusion, that Jones is the bank robber. The number "1" has already been assigned to a premise in this argument, so this premise will be assigned the number "2".
Since 2 offers and independent reason to believe the conclusion, premises 1 and 2 are convergent. Finally then, the argument is standardised as follows:
1.1.1 The police have photographs of the other suspects taken at the Queen's garden party 1.1.2 The Queen says the other suspects were at the garden party
1.1.3 The Queen wouldn't lie.
1.1 All of the other suspects were at the Queen's garden party 1: Jones is the only suspect without an alibi
2: Jones confessed. C: Jones is the bank robber.
(Note: Within a level, it does not matter how the premises are numbered. So for example in the
standardisation above we have premises 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. It would not matter if you swapped these numbers around, as all these numbers indicate is that these are three premises in support of 1.1.) This structure of the argument could be represented pictorially as follows:
The argument standardised above is relatively complicated, but the method described above is a good way to approach complex arguments. Find the conclusion first, and identify any premises which seem to directly support that conclusion. Then look at each of those main premises, and decide whether any evidence or reasons are given in support of each of them, gradually building up the standardisation as a whole. We will go through this process with another example.
As you are reading through arguments, prior to standardising them, it can be helpful to mark with brackets the different propositions which are asserted, which you expect will be the premises and conclusion: (3b) [Australia should adopt more stringent quarantine standards], because [if we fail to make our
quarantine standards stricter, Australia could fall victim to foot and mouth disease], and [this would have a devastating effect on our economy]. [Foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry] -- [a huge proportion of England's livestock had to be destroyed due to the disease] -- and [the meat trade is vital to Australia's economy].
The conclusion here is that Australia should adopt more stringent quarantine standards - that is what the author of the argument is trying to convince the reader should be done.
Find the main premises by asking what reasons are given to convince you of the truth of the conclusion. In this argument, the main premises are the two which are mentioned immediately after the conclusion: Why should we adopt stricter quarantine standards? Because [1] if we fail to do so then Australia could fall victim to foot and mouth, and [2] foot and mouth would have a devastating effect on Australia's economy.
Having decided that these two are main premises, we have three premises left to deal with: Foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry
A huge proportion of England's livestock had to be destroyed due to foot and mouth. The meat trade is vital to Australia's economy.
Are any of these further main premises supporting the conclusion? Do any of them support 1? Or 2? We are not given any evidence to believe 1, since we are given no reason to believe that if we fail to make our standards stricter, Australia could fall victim to foot and mouth: we are told nothing about the laxity of our quarantine standards, or the transmissibility of the disease, for example.
We are, however, given evidence in support of premise 2, "Foot and mouth would have a devastating effect on Australia's economy." The reasons we are given to believe this are that the meat trade is vital to our economy, and that foot and mouth can ruin a nation's meat industry.
The inference we have here as a subargument, then, is:
2.1 Foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry 2.2 The meat industry is vital to Australia's economy
2 Foot and mouth would have a devastating effect on Australia's economy.
The last thing we have to decide on is the role of the premise "A huge proportion of England's livestock had to be destroyed due to foot and mouth". The purpose of this premise is to give evidence for the claim made in premise 2.1, that foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry. The final premise, therefore, will be 2.1.1.
The standardisation we end up with, then, is:
1 If we fail to make our standards stricter, Australia could fall victim to foot and mouth disease 2.1.1 A huge proportion of England's livestock had to be destroyed due to foot and mouth 2.1 Foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry
2.2 The meat trade is vital to Australia's economy.
2 Foot and mouth disease would have a devastating effect on our economy C Australia should adopt more stringent quarantine standards.
2.4 Checking Your Standardisation
The more complex an argument gets, the easier it is to make a mistake in the standardisation. For that reason, it is important to check your standardisation after you have constructed it, to make sure that the inferences you have represented by your numbering correspond to the inferences which were being made in the original argument.
Once you have constructed a standardisation, the numbering identifies which premises are meant to support which conclusion, so you should be able to read these inferences back and have them make sense. More importantly, you should have them correspond to the inferences with which you began.
In argument [2] above, for example, 2.1.1 is the only premise we have which supports 2.1. We should therefore be able to read this inference back as "2.1.1, therefore 2.1", that is:
A huge proportion of England's livestock had to be destroyed due to foot and mouth, therefore foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry.
This does seem to correspond to one of the inferences made in the argument.
We have two premises in support of 2 -- 2.1 and 2.2. So we should be able to read this inference back as "2.1 and 2.2, therefore 2"; that is:
Foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry, and the meat trade is vital to Australia's economy. Therefore, foot and mouth disease would have a devastating effect on our economy.
This, too, sounds like an accurate representation of the inference which has been made.
If there are mistakes in the standardisation, however, this is often the easiest way to pick them up. If, for example, we had mistakenly assigned the premise "The meat trade is vital to Australia's economy" the number 2.1.1, instead of 2.2, then when we came to read back the alleged inference "2.1.1, therefore 2.1", the inference would be:
The meat trade is vital to Australia's economy, therefore foot and mouth disease can ruin a nation's meat industry.
This inference does not make much sense, and is not one which was intended by the original argument. The fact that the meat trade is important to Australia's economy does not give us reason to believe anything about the effects of foot and mouth on the meat industry. So this indicates that an error has been made. Reading an argument from a standardisation: The Monty Hall problem revisited
(Note that this argument is more complicated: it is here to provide practice in reading an argument back from a standardisation).
Standardisation can be used to help clarify complex reasoning. Recall the problem you saw in the first lecture:
On the table are three identical boxes, each with a lid and also a neat pile of ten dollar bills. This game is to be repeated many times. Let’s say I’m running the show.
Here are the rules of the game. First, you leave the room and while you are out, I put a ten dollar bill in one of the boxes. I then close the boxes. I know in which box the money is, but you don’t. Now I invite you back into the room.
Each game is divided into two distinct phases. In the first, by doing no more than pointing, you indicate your choice among the three boxes, which remain closed.
As you have made your choice, I open another box, one of the two remaining boxes. That box will be empty - remember that I know in which box the ten dollar bill is. Having seen one empty box (the one I just opened), you now face two closed boxes, one of which must contain the ten dollar bill.
Now comes the second phase. I now offer you the chance to stay with your first choice, or to switch your choice to the other closed box, the one you failed to choose the first time round.
In the first lecture, you saw the reasoning which shows that you maximise your chances of winning by switching in phase 2, but despite the argument given, many people find the conclusion difficult to accept,
and claim that there must be something wrong with the argument. By using standardisation, we can present the argument in a precise form, so that it is clear what is being argued.
Once we have a standardisation of the argument, if you still want to dispute the conclusion, you will now need to find fault with one of the premises, or one of the inferences presented in the standardisation -- which won't be easy to do!
Here is one way -- although not the only way -- that the argument can be standardised: 1.1.1 In phase 1, you choose from 3 boxes: two empty boxes and one with the money 1.1 There is a 2 in 3 chance that your original choice was an empty box
1.2.1.1.1 In phase 1, you choose from 3 boxes: two empty boxes and one with the money 1.2.1.1.2 After phase 1, the host will open an empty box which you didn't choose.
1.2.1.1 For phase 2 there are 2 closed boxes left: the box you chose and another box - one of which contains the
money
1.2.1 In phase 2, either the money is in the box you chose, or the other box
1.2.2 You can stay with your original choice or switch to the other box, and you win the contents of the box you
choose.
1.2 You will win by switching if and only if your original choice was an empty box. 1: There is a 2 in 3 chance you will win by switching
C: You can double your chance of winnning by switching
Don't be offput by the numbers appearing in this standardisation. They should really make things clearer, as they disambiguate the structure of the argument, and show how each inference works. Remember that numbers such as "1.2.1.1.1" and "1.2.1.1.2" just indicate that these are the first and second premises in support of 1.2.1.1.
Note that one of the premises ("In phase 1, you choose from 3 boxes, 2 empty boxes and one with the money") has been repeated. This premise seems to offer support for two other premises in the argument. To indicate this, it appears with the number 1.1.1 (when it is used to support 1.1) and 1.2.1.1.1 (when it is used to support 1.2.1.1).
To read this standardisation back, try reading the premises in the order suggested by the numbering: [1.1.1] therefore [1.1] [1.2.1.1.1] and [1.2.1.1.2], therefore [1.2.1.1] [1.2.1.1] therefore [1.2.1] [1.2.1] and [1.2.2], therefore [1.2] [1.1] and [1.2], therefore [1] [1] therefore [C]
Check that each of these sounds like a good inference.
This argument is quite complex, but its standardisation suggests two reasons that this is a useful procedure. If an argument is complex, it is useful to break it up into its different subarguments, firstly so that you can see precisely what is being claimed and inferred and decide whether you think it is a good argument, and secondly so that you can present the inferences in a clear and unambiguous way to convince others.
SKILLS FOR WEEK 2 You should be able to:
Standardise arguments with or without subarguments
work out whether the premises of an argument are linked or convergent Check a complex standardised argument by reading it back
3 COUNTER
A
RGUMENTS
(Week 3)3.1 Arguments And Counterarguments
A counterargument is an argument which responds to another argument, presenting an opposing viewpoint. Often you will find a passage which contains two arguments: one which is reported, and another which criticises it. In such a passage, the argument which is just reported is the target argument, the argument opposing the target argument is the counterargument.
(1a) Some people have argued that [it is unreasonable for employers to monitor the use of the internet by their employees], since [it is an invasion of privacy]. But [employers have a right to know what their employees are doing on company time], since [they are paying these employees to do their jobs]. [Employers may also be held liable if employees download or transmit illegal or offensive material using company equipment]. [Employers are entitled to protect themselves against such liability], and [they must therefore be permitted to monitor internet usage to avoid potential legal action].
The target argument here is the argument introduced by the phrase "Some people have argued that ...". Target arguments will very often be signalled in this way, by being attributed to some particular source. The conclusion of the target argument above is "It is unreasonable for employers to monitor the use of the internet by their employees."
(Note that it would be wrong to have as the conclusion: "Some people have argued that it is unreasonable for employers to monitor the use of the internet by their employees." If this were the conclusion, then this would be what the rest of the argument was trying to convince you of — but the argument is not trying to convince you that that is what some people have argued.)
When a target argument is attributed to a particular source, that source will not be mentioned in the premises or conclusion of your standardistion. It is, however, a good idea to note in brackets at the
beginning of your standardisation, the person or group to whom the target argument is attributed. That way, when you are evaluating the arguments, you will know whose argument has been countered.
There is only one premise in the target argument, so it is standardised as follows: 1 For employers to monitor employees' internet usage is an invasion of their privacy. C It is unreasonable for employers to monitor employees' internet usage.
As is often the case, the conclusion of the counterargument is not explicitly stated. But as is also usually the case, the intention of the counterargument is to oppose the conclusion of the target argument. So the intended conclusion is something like:
C It is not unreasonable for employers to monitor employees' internet usage
In making explicit a conclusion which is not explicit in the original argument, you should again apply the principle of charity. Don't make the conclusion any stronger than it has to be. So in this case, we would choose something like the conclusion above, rather than "Employers should monitor employees' internet use" or "It is good for employers to monitor their employees' internet use". The person presenting the
counterargument might not be intending to argue for anything as strong as these. All that is being argued, is that (contrary to the conclusion of the target argument), it is not unreasonable for employers to act in this way.
Looking at the argument, it is clear that there are two separate lines of reasoning being given in support of the conclusion. The first line of reasoning is:
"[employers have a right to know what their employees are doing on company time], since [they are paying these employees to do their jobs]. "
This consists of two premises, and the relationship between them is indicated by the premise indicator "since". Two of the premises, then, will be:
1.1 Employers are paying these employees to do their jobs.
1 Employers have a right to know what their employees are doing on company time.
The other main line of reasoning is contained in the rest of the argument, and contains three individual premises:
"[Employers may also be held liable if employees download or transmit illegal or offensive material using company equipment]. [They are entitled to protect themselves against this], and [they must therefore be permitted to monitor internet usage to avoid potential legal action]."
"Therefore", a conclusion indicator, occurs in the last sentence, which suggests that "Employers are entitled to protect themselves against this [being held liable...]" is a premise in support of "Employers must be permitted to monitor internet usage to avoid potential legal action", which will be a main premise.
Where does the other premise ("Employers may be held liable if employees download or transmit illegal or offensive material using company equipment") fit in?
It needs to be linked to "Employers are entitled to protect themselves against this [being held liable...]" to support "Employers must be permitted to monitor internet usage to avoid potential legal action" : We are to believe that employers should be allowed to monitor employees' internet use because they can be held liable for such use and they are entitled to protect themselves against liability.
The second part of the argument, then would be:
2.1 Employers may be held liable if employees download or transmit illegal or offensive material using company equipment
2.2 Employers are entitled to protect themselves against this [being held liable...]
2 Employers must be permitted to monitor internet usage to avoid potential legal action
The final standardisation of this argument and counterargument, then, is: Target argument ("some people")
1 For employers to monitor employees' internet usage is an invasion of their privacy. C It is unreasonable for employers to monitor employees' internet usage.
Counterargument:
1 Employers have a right to know what their employees are doing on company time.
2.1 Employers may be held liable if employees download or transmit illegal or offensive material using company equipment
2.2 Employers are entitled to protect themselves against this [being held liable...]
2 Employers must be permitted to monitor internet usage to avoid potential legal action C It is not unreasonable for employers to monitor employees' internet usage.
3.2 Noting Direct Responses
The premises of the counterargument above do not directly address the claim that the monitoring of employees' internet access is an invasion of privacy, but instead gives reason to think that the action is still reasonable because other considerations outweigh the employees' privacy in this context.
Often, however, counterarguments specifically address some or all of the premises of the target argument. When this occurs, it is a good idea to keep track of which premises have been refuted or addressed, to see how successful the counterargument is in opposing the target argument. To mark such direct responses, we will adopt a new piece of notation. If a premise of the counterargument is given as a direct response to premise 1 of the target argument, for example, we will note this by writing [X1] next to the premise of the counterargument. ([X2] will mark a direct response to premise 2 of the target argument, [X1.1] marks a direct response to premise 1.1 of the target argument, and so on].
(2a) Some lobby groups think [it is justifiable to keep illegal immigrants in detention centres], because [they have deliberately committed a criminal offence], and because [their imprisonment acts as a deterrent to others]. But [often those who arrive in Australia are innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing], since [illegal immigration is organised by people-smuggling syndicates]. [These syndicates mislead the immigrants into thinking that they are doing nothing wrong]. And [there is no real deterrent effect], since [that would only work if the the potential illegal immigrants were informed about what will happen to them in Australia], but [they often do not know that they will be detained]. [Imprisonment, therefore, cannot be justified].
Target argument: ("some lobby groups")
1 Illegal immigrants have deliberately committed a criminal offence 2 The imprisonment of illegal immigrants acts as a deterrent to others. C The imprisonment of illegal immigrants in detention centres is justifiable.
Counterargument:
1.1 Illegal immigration is organised by people-smuggling syndicates
1.2 People-smuggling syndicates mislead the immigrants into thinking that they are doing nothing wrong.
1 Often those who arrive in Australia are innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing. [X1] 2.1 Deterrence would only work if the potential illegal immigrants were informed about what will happen to them in Australia.
2.2 Often they do not know they will be detained. 2 There is no real deterrent effect. [X2]
C The imprisonment of illegal immigrants in detention cannot be justified.
In this counterargument, the two premises of the target argument have been directly addressed. This has been noted in the standardisation of the counterargument with the references "[X1]" and "[X2]". By noting these as you go along, when you come back to evaluate the argument, it is easier to see if there are some points which were made in the target argument which have not been addressed, and it will make it easier to evaluate the success of the counterargument as a refutation of the target argument.
Which premises have been addressed is also something to keep in mind when constructing your own counterarguments. If you make it clear that you are addressing each of your opponent's points, this will strengthen your counterargument.
Example:
(2b) The Australian Home Birth Collective argues that [women should be discouraged from giving birth in hospital], on the grounds that [birth is a natural process], and because [women managed to give birth in the past, before hospitals and medical intervention].
But [the fact that something is natural, is not normally thought of as a reason to shun the benefits of medical science which could make it easier]. [Cancer is natural too], but [we do not think in that situation that nature should be left to take its course].
And [in earlier times, to which this group so nostalgically refers, before medical assistance was available, the mortality rate during childbirth for women and babies was tragically high].
So [women should really be encouraged to give birth in hospital].
Target argument:("The Australian Home Birth Collective") 1 Birth is a natural process.
2 Women managed to give birth in the past, before hospitals and medical intervention. C Women should be discouraged from giving birth in hospital
Counterargument: 1.1 Cancer is natural, too
1.2 We do not think when people have cancer that nature should be left to take its course 1 The fact that something is natural is not normally thought of as a reason to shun the benefits of medical science which could make it easier. [ X1]
2 In earlier times, before medical assistance was available, mortality rates for women and babies during childbirth were tragically high [X2]
C Women should be encouraged to give birth in hospital.
It is important to note that a counterargument can be good without responding to each of its target argument's premises, and often strong counterarguments will criticise the strength of the argument itself, rather than debating any of the specific points made. The reason making a note of any direct responses can be useful, however, is that it gets you into the habit of thinking about how the counterargument responds to the target argument, and whether its response is successful.