2.3 Structuring
Topic 9: Proposition
Topic 10: Identifying Arguments in Prose
Topic 11: Identifying Contentions
Topic 12: Indicators
Topic 13: Indicators – examples
Topic 14: Refining Claims
Topic 9: Proposition
What is a proposition? There is much philosophical discussion (3) on this topic, but for our purposes,
A proposition is a thought that is capable of being true or false.
Examples
| Thought | Proposition True or False? |
|---|---|
| The earth revolves around the sun. | Yes True |
| Winter is warmer than summer. | Yes False |
| revolves | No Neither |
| A thought like this cannot be either true or false on its own. It can combine with other thoughts to form propositions (e.g., the first one above). | |
| global warming | No Neither |
| Similarly, this thought is not yet 'fleshed out' enough to count as a proposition. It is what we refer to as a thought bite. | |
| Fermat's last theorem | Depends |
| The thought Fermat's Last Theorem does not assert anything. It is about a theorem of Fermat; his last one, to be precise. That theorem (what is it? do you know? can you entertain that thought?) is a proposition and is true (4). | |
| I am here. | Yes True |
| In fact this is what is known as a necessary truth. It cannot be false, whenever entertained by anyone. | |
| Would you like tea? | No Neither |
| This thought anticipates an answer which may be true or false, but cannot be true or false itself. | |
| Colorless green ideas sleep furiously | No Neither |
| The thought is nonsensical (supposedly). (Chomsky, 1957. Syntactic Structures) |
As illustrated in the examples above, there is a close connection between propositions and grammatical sentences of a language such as English. Every proposition corresponds to a grammatical sentence, though not every grammatical sentence expresses a proposition. Declarative sentences are those which express propositions.
(3) See: Propositions
(4) See: Fermat's Last Theorem
Topic 10: Identifying Arguments in Prose
Almost all the time, reasoning is presented in what we call prose – i.e., in streams of words and sentences, whether spoken or written. Any person hearing or reading argument-laden prose has the task of figuring out what arguments are being conveyed:
To identify an argument in prose is to locate an argument within a body of prose, and to specify clearly what it is.
Locating
To locate the argument is to be able to say where, exactly, it occurs in the prose; and conversely, what parts of the prose are (and are not) parts of the argument. When dealing with simple arguments presented in short texts, this may be straightforward. The more usual situation, however, is that the argument is complex, and is interwoven in the prose, with a lot of other material, making the task of pinning it down rather more difficult.
Specifying
It is one thing to know where an argument is, but knowing exactly what it is, is another thing entirely. Thus the second part of the identification task is being able to say ‘in your own words’ what the author was trying to argue. In other words, the problem is to re-present the argument
- fully
- clearly and unambiguously
- correctly, i.e., being faithful to the argument actually presented in the prose.
In the ideal case, you would have worked up the argument into canonical form. A good argument map presents an argument fully and clearly, so the ‘specifying’ sub-task can be thought of as mapping the argument in the prose.
A Challenging Task
Trivial cases aside, identifying arguments in prose is a tricky business, because:
- Often the author of the prose has weak reasoning skills, has only a weak grasp of the argument to begin with, and is not good at drafting argumentative prose.
- The prose generally is trying to convey much more than just the argument itself. The additional material becomes mixed – or entangled – with the argument.
- An author may be more focused on persuading the audience by means more foul than fair, i.e., by relying on various rhetorical tricks rather than clear display of logical reasoning.
- Due largely to the distinctive structure of complex arguments, there is an inherent tension between presenting an argument clearly and producing natural, flowing, enjoyable prose.
Top Down Approach
Given the challenges involved, it helps to take a careful, systematic approach to argument identification. One systematic approach is ‘top down’. First, try to establish the main contention, i.e., the main issue being argued or disputed. Second, identify in the prose, and state clearly, the reasons or objections bearing directly upon it. Third, identify the reasons or objections bearing upon those, repeating as necessary.
Bottom Up or Jigsaw Approach
Alternatively, you can proceed in the other direction, i.e., first identifying in the prose all the claims which appear to be part of the argument, and then trying to piece them together into a larger structure. This is like doing a jigsaw, where two pieces ‘fit’ if one belongs to a reason for the other.
Note, however, that some pieces may not belong to the jigsaw at all, and many pieces of the jigsaw are missing, since authors generally do not state many of the claims which form parts of their arguments.
See also: Topic Argument
Topic 11: Identifying Contentions
Recall that a contention is a claim which is being argued for (or against), i.e., a claim which has at least one reason or objection bearing directly upon it.
When somebody presents an argument in a text, your task as listener or reader is to figure out what that argument is. The first and most important aspect of this is figuring out what the contention is.
Identifying a contention is interpreting an argumentative text to identify which of the author’s claims is functioning as a contention, i.e., being argued for (or against).
Picking out contentions is a skill that improves with practice.
Identifying Main Contentions
The main contention of a multi-layer argument is a contention which is not itself part of any reason or objection; it is at the top (or trunk) of the argument tree.
In an argumentative text, the main contention is generally the main point the author wants to convince you to believe; it is what all their reasoning leads to. The main contention is the answer to the following kinds of question:
- Why is the author bothering to tell me all this stuff ?
- What is the main point the author is trying to convince me of ?
- What is the most important thing the author is arguing for or against?
Note that a single argumentative text may contain a number of quite distinct complex arguments. When that happens, there are a number of main contentions, and lots of subsidiary contentions.
Guidelines for Identifying Main Contentions
We can often find main contentions intuitively – without really knowing how we did it. But sometimes it is not so easy. It is easy to be sidetracked by interesting, novel, or outrageous claims; yet these may not be the main thing the author is arguing for.
Here are some guidelines to help you identify main contentions:
- Look at the title. Look at the title first! It is amazing how often people seem to skip the title completely.
Authors often help us by saying right up front what their contention is going to be. Be careful, however: Sometimes the title is not supplied by the author. In newspapers, for example, titles are often supplied by the editors, who may have misrepresented the author’s main point. - Look for contention indicators. Indicators are words that signpost reasoning in a text.
Contention indicators are words like ‘therefore…’. Sometimes authors will use elaborate phrases to signal their main contention: e.g. ‘So the upshot of all this is…’ - Location, location, location. Main contentions are often (but not always!) found at the beginning or at the end of the relevant piece of text. The main contention is often found stated explicitly in an introductory section or in a concluding section of the text. Within a section or paragraph, contentions are more likely to be found at the beginning or the end.
- The really? test. A contention is often some controversial, important, or novel claim – usually more so than the premises at least. Generally, an argument is used to persuade us to accept or reject a claim that is controversial or at least contested. After all, that is why the proponent is bothering to argue for or against it. The way to get us to accept a contention is to offer a series of logical moves from premises that are generally accepted as true to an important contention we might otherwise not have believed. That is why you should expect a main contention to be more controversial or novel than the premises.
- Context. Context gives many and varied clues to what the main contention is. Look at the context in which the text was produced, and ask yourself questions like:
- Who (and what) is the author?
- What are the author’s goals?
- Where did I find the text? What should I expect to find in this context?
- What implies what? In the end, there is no substitute for actually understanding the text, and seeing which claims provide evidence for (or might be regarded as providing evidence for) which other claims. Take each claim in turn, and ask yourself whether the text provides any reasons for believing that claim. If the answer is ‘yes’, then the claim is a contention (the contention to some argument in the text), though it is not necessarily the main contention. To determine whether a claim is the main contention, ask whether it is used in the text to support some further claim, i.e. whether some further claim depends on the claim in question being true. If the answer is ‘no’, you have probably identified the main contention.
Hidden Contentions
Sometimes the main contention of a text is not explicitly stated anywhere in the text. This can happen particularly if there is an ongoing debate on an issue, or if the argument is offered in a context where everyone is likely to understand what it is about. Alternatively, an author may offer a number of reasons and say: ‘Now you can draw your own conclusion’.
Topic 12: Indicators
Arguments are usually expressed in a stream of words. Sometimes we say them out loud, and sometimes we write them down in written form (letters, essays, reports etc.). The idea is to convey arguments from one person (the ‘author’) to others (the ‘audience’) using words as the vehicle or medium of communication.
The challenge facing the audience is to take the stream of words in, and figure out what the argument is. That is, the audience has to identify the claims and how they ‘hang together’ in an argumentative structure. This is quite a difficult thing to do, especially as arguments get more complex.
Fortunately, authors can make life a little easier for their audiences by inserting little ‘helpers’ – words or phrases which explicitly signal the structure of the reasoning. These logical signposts are known as argument structure indicators, or just indicators:
An [argument structure] indicator is a word or phrase whose role in an argumentative text is to help the audience identify the structure of the reasoning.
Examples
Here is a typical piece of argumentative writing:
Grad students can start successful companies. The three big powers on the Internet now are Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. Average age of their founders: 24. And if grad students can do it, why not undergrads?
Note that, as is often the case, the author has provided no argument structure indicators. Here is a version rewritten to include some indicators:
The three big powers on the Internet now are Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. Average age of their founders: 24. Together, these facts establish that grad students can start successful companies. Hence, undergrads should be able to start successful companies.
The rewritten version is more labored, but it does make the structure of the reasoning more obvious.
Types of Argument Structure Indicators
There are dozens of words or phrases that are commonly used as indicators. It is common to classify indicators in terms of the nature of what they are pointing to, i.e., what immediately follows them. Here is a small selection of classic argument structure indicators:
| Reason Indicators | Objection Indicators | Contention Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| because… | although… | therefore… |
| follows from… | but… | hence… |
| for… | however… | demonstrates… |
| since… | establishes… | |
| as… | implies… | |
| on the grounds that… | shows… | |
| consequently… | ||
| proves… | ||
| we can infer… |
Indicators are Clues
Indicators are best thought of as clues to argument structure. Some (e.g., proves that…) are highly reliable. Others are very ambiguous; they may be indicating argument structure, but they may also be playing a quite different role. The classic reason indicator because is a good example; very often, it is pointing not to a reason, but to an explanation.
Lack of Co-premise Indicators
It is a remarkable fact that, while there are dozens of reason indicators and contention indicators, there are almost no words or phrases which commonly indicate that two claims are co-premises.
The word and is often used, but and has many other uses as well. Identifying co-premise relationships in typical argumentative prose requires a very strong intuitive sense for how arguments hang together.
See also: Topics Identifying Arguments in Prose, Holding Hands Principle and Inference Objection
Topic 13: Indicators - examples
Reason Indicators
| Reason Indicators | Examples |
|---|---|
| because… | She must have left, because her car isn't here. One must presume that Al Qaeda lacks nuclear and biological warfare capability, because if it had such weapons, it would have used them by now. Note, however, that 'because' is not always an (evidential) reason indicator. It very often signals an explanation, as in: She left because she was tired. |
| follows from… | The fact that she doesn't care about me follows from her insolence. The decrepitude of our taxation system follows from the fact that strawberry milkshakes are taxed at a different rate to chocolate milkshakes. It follows from the low number of participants that the survey is not very reliable. |
| is demonstrated by… | This shape is definitely a circle. This is demonstrated by the fact that every point in its perimeter is equidistant from this central point. |
| may be inferred from… | Peter is married, which may be inferred from his wearing a wedding ring. |
| for… | The murder of the taxi driver must have been planned, for in Melbourne people don't normally carry guns. |
| in view of… | The security officer must have stolen the diamonds, in view of the fact that only she had access to the safe. In view of the fact that the nation state is a modern invention, it is ridiculous to speak of Greeks and Turks at 700 BC. |
| since… | My car is reliable, since I bought it new only three months ago. Note, however, that 'since' often refers to a temporal duration: Ever since I bought it, my car has been reliable. Another example: Since you are a strict vegetarian, you should not eat this pie. c.f. Since you became vegetarian you haven't eaten this kind of pie. |
| the reason being… | He cannot have fired this gun at 6.45, the reason being that he was already dead at 5.15. |
Objection Indicators
| Objection Indicators | Examples |
|---|---|
| but… | One might think that Shakespeare was Italian; but one doesn't need to be Italian to write about Italy. |
| although… | Although the oldest known fossil organisms were ocean dwellers, life may actually have developed in freshwater ponds. |
Conclusion Indicators
| Contention Indicators | Examples |
|---|---|
| accordingly… | She was in Rome at the time. Accordingly, she could not have burned the place in London. |
| demonstrates… | Terry Lane's description of our involvement in Gallipoli as a case of 'not minding our own business' demonstrates that he has no concept of what this sacrifice means to an increasing number of ordinary Australians. [Warren Mills] |
| establishes… | The invective expressed about his mother in his diary establishes that he wanted to kill her. |
| implies… | Her silence implies that she knows more than she cares to admit. |
| justifies… | The fact that all our monitoring equipment has failed to pick up anything justifies the belief that the ghost is a figment of Mrs. Muir's imagination. |
| means… | Pierre's high temperature means that he has some sort of viral infection. |
| shows… | The huge number of alcohol-related car accidents shows that the campaign against drink driving is a failure. |
| suggests… | Clinical evidence from hundreds of trials suggests that this substance is carcinogenic. |
| consequently… | According to our records he was already dead at 5.15, consequently he could not have fired the shot at 6.45. |
| hence… | Mandy has more experience than Mindy in these matters, hence you should follow her advice rather than Mindy's. |
| so… | The sample size is too small, so you should not expect statistically reliable results. |
| therefore… | Only couples have entered this room, therefore there must be an even number of people in it. |
| thus… | Most people are ignorant of matters of state, thus democracy is a poor form of government. |
| proves… | This film clearly shows you to be holding an animated discussion with Sir Rodney, which proves that you were lying when you denied knowing him. |
| I conclude… | From the fact that Ross chaired the meeting I conclude that Charlie has resigned as chairman. |
| infer… | From the color of this litmus paper we can infer that the substance is acidic. |
| follows that… | As soon as one knows that any particular type of system is capable of emulating any cellular automaton, it immediately follows that there must be examples of that type of system that are universal. (c.f. follows from). |
See also: Topic Indicators
Topic 14: Refining Claims
What is Refining a Claim?
When building a brick house, you need decent bricks, not ones that are irregular or crumble away. Similarly with arguments. Recall that the basic building blocks of arguments are claims. Solid arguments require clear, solid claims.
Unfortunately, often when people present an argument, they express their claims poorly. In order to understand what their argument is, or to evaluate it, you may have to take their claims and rework them so they are clear and definite:
To refine a claim is to reformulate it until the claim is as clear and definite as required for argument analysis and evaluation.
How to Refine a Claim There are many ways claims may need to be improved for serious critical thinking. Here are seven guidelines for refining claims:
As far as is reasonably possible, ensure that the claim is
- Declarative – expressed in a declarative sentence.
- Simple – made up of only one claim.
- Literal – not metaphorical.
- Precise – such that only a narrow range of situations would make it true.
- Concise – containing no superfluous words or phrases.
- Unambiguous – containing no problematic ambiguities.
- Emotionally measured – expressed with an appropriate degree of emotional overlay.
Note that claims are expressed in sentences. Sometimes refining a claim is really a matter of working on the sentence expressing the claim rather than the claim itself.
Declarative
Ensure that the claim is expressed in a well-formed declarative sentence.
Declarative sentences are the kind we use to make assertions, i.e., to say something is true or false.
Example
| Claim expressed in a declarative sentence | Point to note | |
|---|---|---|
| Is breakfast ready? Make some breakfast! | None | Questions and imperatives (orders, instructions) are not declarative; generally they do not assert anything. |
| Do we want a nuclear rubbish dumped near our crops? | We do not want nuclear waste dump next to our crops. | 'Rhetorical' questions express claims, but should be reformulated. |
| should resign | The Governor General should resign. | Short phrases should be expanded into full declarative sentences. |
| Crown roast of lamb – modern, American | Crown roast of lamb is a modern, American dish. | Ensure the sentence is fully fleshed out. |
Simple
Ensure that the claim is as simple as possible. In this sense,
A simple claim is one which contains only one claim, i.e., only one idea being put forward as true. A compound claim contains multiple distinct claims.
This can be tricky. Some seemingly compound claims are actually simple, and vice versa:
Example
| Simple or Compound? | Claim(s) Expressed | Point to Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A GST (Goods and Services Tax) is regressive, and it is too burdensome for business. | Compound | A GST is regressive. A GST is too burdensome for business. | Some claims contain multiple distinct claims. '...and...' claims are generally compound. |
| Elizabeth left because she was embarrassed. | Compound | Elizabeth left. Elizabeth was embarrassed. Elizabeth's leaving was caused by her embarrassment. | Some very simple-seeming claims can contain many claims. |
| If it rains then the game will be cancelled. | Simple | If it rains then the game will be cancelled. | 'If...then...' claims are simple. Although they contain two propositions, neither of them is being claimed. Only the connection between them is being claimed. |
| He is either a liar or a lunatic. | Simple | He is either a liar or a lunatic. | 'either...or...' claims are also simple. The constituent propositions are not being individually asserted as true. |
| He is neither a liar nor a lunatic. | Compound | He is not a liar. He is not a lunatic. | '…neither...nor...' claims are equivalent to 'not…' and 'not...' |
Literal
Strive to make the claim literal, i.e., to reduce **metaphor.
Example
| More Literal | Point to Note | |
|---|---|---|
| Karl Kruszelnicki lumps all astrologers and astrology into one basket. | Karl Kruszelnicki treats all astrologers and astrology as if they were the same. | The more literal version is less colorful but makes the meaning more definite. |
| JERUSALEM – The Mideast peace process was once again derailed Monday, when U.S.-brokered talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders careened off their tracks into an embankment and burst into flames, burning with intensity for nearly an hour until the smoking remains were shoveled over with dirt. | JERUSALEM – The Mideast peace process was once again halted Monday, when U.S.-brokered talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders completely broke down. |
Precise
Ensure that the claim is appropriately precise.
A claim is precise if only a narrow range of situations would make it true.
The opposite of precision is vagueness.
Note: it is usually not possible or desirable to make a claim completely precise. The level of precision you need depends on the situation.
Example
| More Precise | Point to Note | |
|---|---|---|
| It is warmish today. | The temperature is around 30 degrees Celsius today. | Depending on location, the time of year, and the speaker, any number of temperatures might make the original claim true. The more precise version is still somewhat vague, but less so, and adequate for most purposes. |
| The Australian Army has never let the Australian people down. | The Australian Army has never lost a battle. The Australian Army has always performed well. | When making a claim more precise, you may be forced to choose between a number of alternative interpretations. The alternatives may differ in truth. In this case, the second claim is closer to being true. |
Concise
Ensure that the sentence expressing the claim is as concise as possible.
A sentence is concise when it contains no superfluous words or phrases.
For our purposes, a word or phrase is superfluous when it makes no difference to the argument. It might add something else (emphasis, stylistic flair, background information, etc.), but if this extra stuff does not affect the logic, toss it out!
Example
| More Concise | Point to Note | |
|---|---|---|
| However you look at it, it is abundantly clear that we have far more to gain by reducing greenhouse gas emissions than we have to lose. [26 words] | We would gain far more than we lose by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [13 words] | The concise form is much shorter. Some nuances in the original have been lost, but it is unlikely these would have made any difference in any argument in which this claim was embedded. |
Unambiguous
Ensure that the sentence expressing the claim has no serious ambiguities.
**A word, phrase or sentence is unambiguous when, in context, it has only one distinct meaning.
Ambiguity depends a lot on context. The meaning of a sentence is partly a matter of the words and structure of the sentence itself, and partly a matter of the situation in which it is uttered.
| Ambiguous Claim | Less Ambiguous Claim(s) | Point to Note |
|---|---|---|
| Jacques flew to Djibouti. | Jacques traveled to Djibouti by airplane. Jacques escaped by going to Djibouti. | |
| Sars virus found in tears [newspaper headline] | The Sars virus has been identified in tear fluid. Somebody has found the Sars virus crying. [absurd] |
Ambiguity and vagueness are superficially similar, but importantly different. Ambiguity is a matter of multiple distinct meanings, each of which might be quite precise; vagueness is a matter of the meaning (whether one or multiple) allowing the claim to be made true by a wide variety of situations. The sentence ‘It is 39.45 degrees’ is ambiguous (e.g., degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit?) but each of those meanings is quite precise.
Emotionally Measured
Ensure that the emotional tone of the language expressing the claim is appropriate to its meaning.
Example
| Emotionally Measured | Point to note | |
|---|---|---|
| The company's heinous subterfuges are destroying the worker's livelihoods. | The company's dishonest tactics are reducing the workers' wages. | Excess emotional force should be removed. |
| Indonesian-backed militias ruthlessly slaughtered thousands of East Timorese. | Same | Sometimes strong emotional force is quite appropriate. |
| The strikes caused collateral damage among non-combatants. | Civilians were killed and injured in the bombing. | Sometimes emotional force should be added. Euphemisms are phrases used to avoid emotional force; sometimes this is OK, but other times it obscures important matters. 'Trying to explain the causes of his country's civil wars, John Garang, the southern Sudanese rebel leader, told the UN Security Council last week that there had been a "failure to manage diversity". That is one way of putting it. Another would be to say that the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum has orchestrated mass murder and rape among any ethnic group it suspects of supporting any of the country's rebel movements.' The Economist, Nov. 25th 2004. |