web viewclassifying & analyzing reasoning. 1 sentences & propositions. 1. there are many...

1

Classifying & Analyzing Reasoning

1 Sentences & Propositions1. There are many things people can do with sentences: they can

describe the world, propose a plan of action, make promises, exclaim (in pain, in anger, in surprise, in dismay, in fear, and others), ask questions, and lots of other things. Here are some examples; the italics give the context and are not part of each sentence:

a. Jack says to Jill: It is a lovely day outside.b. Jill says to Jack: You should take Jim for a walk in the park.c. Jones says to Smith: Get me a beer!d. Bill says to Henry: Is Jack home from Baghdad yet? e. Smith says: Ouch! f. Jill says: If only the Lakers would win on Saturday! g. Henry says to Jack: I apologize for yelling at you.h. Smith says to Jones: With this ring I thee wed.

In this book we will be concerned with sentences like those in (a) and (b).

In (a), Jack is informing Jill about the weather outside and Jill can consider whether or not this is a true description of (this part of) the world. (a) is a descriptive proposition.

In (b), Jill is proposing an action as good to do (in this case, that Jack should take Jim (the Great Dane) to the park) and Jack can consider whether or not this is a good thing to do. (b) is a practical proposition.

2. Descriptive and practical propositions are two kinds of proposition. A proposition in general is a sentence offered by the speaker for consideration by the audience.

For our purposes, the words "statement", "claim" and "assertion" are all equivalent in meaning to "proposition".

However, we will not use "sentence" as an equivalent for "proposition". A proposition is a kind of sentence, but there are other kinds of sentences besides propositions, such as (c) through (h) and lots of others.

3. None of (c) through (h) is a proposition; their purpose is not to make a proposal about what to believe or do. In each case the speaker is doing something else.

(c) is a command, (d) is a question, (e) is Smith exclaiming in pain, (f) is a wish, (g) is an apology, and (h) forms part of a wedding ceremony – if all goes well, two people will become married. (c) through (h) is just a small sample of the things people can do with words.

4. You can test whether or not a sentence is a proposition by putting "The speaker is proposing that …" or "The speaker is claiming that …" or "The speaker is stating that …" or "The speaker is asserting that …" in front of the sentence. If you know what it is, insert the speaker's name: "Jack is

2

claiming that …" and so on. Propositions will still make good grammatical sense while non-propositions will not make grammatical sense.

For example, if you put "The speaker (= Jack) is asserting that …" in front of (a), you get "Jack is asserting that it is a lovely day outside.", which is fine. But, for example, if you try to put "The speaker (= Jones) is claiming that …" in front of (c), you get something that doesn't make good sense in English: "Jones is claiming that get me a beer.". The same happens with each of (d) through (h).

You have to be careful when using this test with what are called performatives. (g) and (h) are two kinds of performative – they are trying to change social relations. The problem for us is that some performatives – such as (g) – are done by saying "I <verb> …" and you can put "The speaker is proposing that …" or "The speaker is claiming that …" in front of such sentences and get a grammatical sentence even though they are not really propositions.

If we use the test on (g), we get "The speaker is proposing that I apologize for yelling at you.". But note that there's a big difference between

g. Henry says to Jack: I apologize for yelling at youand

i. Smith says to Jones: Henry is apologizing for yelling at Jack.

When Henry says to Jack "I apologize for yelling." his goal is not to tell Jack that he is apologizing, his goal is to apologize. Smith's goal, on the other hand, is to describe to Jones what is happening and Jones can consider whether or not he believes Smith's description of the world. Here is another example:

j. Jill is mad at Jack: I curse you and your selfishness.

Using the test, you might be led to think that (j) is a proposition. After all, "Jill is proposing that I curse you and your selfishness." makes grammatical sense. But Jill's intent is not to describe her action of cursing someone but rather to curse someone.

Jill might have simply said "Curse you and your selfishness! and the test would work on this: when "Jill is proposing that …" is placed in front of it we get ungrammatical nonsense. Similarly, (g) could have been expressed as "Sorry for yelling at you." and this fails the test.

Sentence (i) on the other hand is a proposition (and is a descriptive proposition). Smith's purpose in saying "Henry is apologizing to Jack." is to describe what is happening in the world. (i) also passes the test. Similarly, the following sentence is a proposition:

k. Jones says: Jill is cursing Jack for his selfishness.

(i) and (k) are propositions – it is possible to put "The speaker claims that …" in front of them. And (in context) it would be inappropriate to

3

construe them in terms of performative language such as "Sorry for yelling." or "Curse you, Jack.".

3. Practical proposals look a lot like commands. Here is (b) again, along with another example (l):

b. Jill says to Jack: You should take Jim for a walk in the park.

The difference between practical propositions and commands is that when a speaker gives a command, she doesn't intend her words to be understood as making a proposal that the audience can agree or disagree with. Instead, she insists (or at least, is trying to insist) that the audience do something.

4. Propositions will be important in the rest of the book because reasoning is expressed in propositions.

(And as you will see later in this chapter, sometimes non-propositions have an implied propositional content. This means that speakers will sometimes will utter a non-proposition but it is the related proposition we're really going to be interested in. But that's for later ...)

5. A single English sentence might contain multiple propositions. Multiple reasons are often given in a single sentence by using a

conjunction. A simple example of a conjunction is the sentence "Jack went up a hill and Jill went up a hill.". This sentence is a conjunction of two propositions. Consider the following passage:

Boomers need to save more for retirement than those approaching retirement have done in the past. This is because they are living longer than the elderly ever have and medical care is more expensive than ever before.

The second sentence contains two propositions. We thus number as follows:1 Boomers need to save more for retirement than those approaching retirement have done in the past. This is (because) 2 [they are living longer than the elderly ever have] and 3 [medical care is more expensive than ever before.]

Reasoning Non-Reasoning

I chose Reasoning based on the flag word "because" and because the words "need to" suggest that what follows are reasons for this advice.

Be careful: a sentence's use of the word "and" is not perfect indicator of the sentence's needing to be broken up. The "and" must conjoin propositions. Consider the following sentence:

The only relevant difference between war plan B and war plan C is that B costs less than C.

4

Because the sentence makes use of the word "and" it is tempting to think that it contains more than one proposition and, thus, that it needs to be broken up. This, however, is not the case. After all, the word "and" in this sentence is not conjoining two distinct propositions. There is no way to break up the sentence into two propositions, as the word "between" requires that the subject is between one thing and another thing.

Other words and phrases can do the same job as "and" in conjoining more than one proposition into a single sentence. In English, the word "but" can often be used in place of "and". An example sentence using "but" is "Jack is tall but he is uncoordinated.". This sentence should be broken into the two simple propositions "Jack is tall." and "Jack is uncoordinated.".

(All of our examples of conjunctions have been of conjunctions in the reasons. In the chapter on Diagramming we will see examples of targets which are conjunctions and learn how to handle these.)

A comma can also be used. An example sentence using commas is "Jack went to the park with Jim, his leash, a tennis ball and some treats.". This sentence should be broken down into four simple propositions.

While propositions joined with "and" must be separated, propositions joined with "or" or joined together in an "if … then …" construction must be treated as one proposition. If you were to separate such sentences into two propositions you would change the meaning of the proposition. For example, "The dog ran either to the left or the right." cannot be rendered as "The dog ran to the left." and "The dog ran to the right." for the original proposition asserts only that the dog took one of the two paths, not that he ran to the left and to the right. The same problem occurs if you attempt to split up "If … then …" propositions. "If … then …" propositions and "… or …" propositions are two types of compound propositions.

(Note also that a conjunction occurring within any part of a compound proposition should not be broken up. For example, "Either Jill will go first, or else Smith and Jones will go first.". The conjunction here is the second part of an "either … or else …" proposition and should be left alone.)

(Finally, you might sometimes want to consider what appears to be a single proposition as two propositions, because sometimes the proposition will bring with it a second, presupposed, proposition. An example can be derived from the question (posed by a lawyer at a trial) "Sir, have you stopped beating your wife?". If the witness says "No." because he has never beat his wife, he gives the appearance of continuing to beat his wife, while if he answers "Yes." he gives the appearance of having beaten his wife in the past, even if he does not do so in the present. Neither answer is palatable, but witnesses in court are restricted to answering either "Yes." or "No.". The trick is made possible because the question presupposes that the person on the stand used to beat his wife. (It is commonly called a "loaded" or a "compound" question.) Similarly, you can see that the related proposition "Smith has stopped beating his wife." can be understood as containing two propositions: that Smith used to beat his wife and that Smith

5

currently does not beat his wife. These can be separated in your analysis if doing so sheds light on the structure of the reasoning.)

6. In summary: There are descriptive propositions and practical propositions; everything else (for the time being) is a non-proposition.A single English sentence can contain multiple propositions.

Exercises

Part 1.(i) For each sentence, write "Proposition" if it is an proposition or write "Non-Proposition" if it is a non-proposition. Explain your choice as necessary. (ii) If you write "Proposition", say whether it is a descriptive or practical proposition. And if you write "Non-Proposition", say what the speaker is doing with the sentence.

Sample: Jack says: Gas is really cheap these days.

Proposition – Descriptive

1. An army captain in WWI says to his troops: Chaaaaaarge!

2. Smith is a little depressed and sighs: Every day is just like the day before.

3. Bill says to Henry: Is it true that coherentism and externalism are compatible with each other?

4. Jack is eager to go to the park. Henry says: Go get the leash, and then wait with Jim by the front door.

5. Bill says to Henry: The cat is on the mat or on the piano.

6. Jones is mad at Smith: I hope you trip and break your nose.

7. Smith says to Jones: Jill hopes that Jack had a good time at the movie.

8. Bill is just back from the first class of the term and is talking to Henry: Professor White walked into the classroom, passed out the syllabus, and asked "Are there any questions about the mechanics of the class?".

6

9. Smith's low mood continues. He says to himself: Why does it always rain on me?

10. Bill informs Henry: House M. D. airs on Fox on Monday evenings.

11. On an educational technology blog: Google's Chromebooks now account for more than a quarter of America's lucrative education market.

12. Jill says to Jack: The Interview stars Seth Rogen and James Franco.

13. Henry says to Bill: You should take the job.

Part 2. Break up these sentences if possible.

1. Sheldon tried to get tickets for ComicCon but did not succeed.

2. The Statue of Liberty, which was given to the US by the people of France, is 305 feet tall.

3. The Patriots will win the division or the Bears will quality for a wild-card.

4. If the pitch freezes, the game will be cancelled.

5. Jim is chasing a squirrel and is happy.

6. Jill said that she would arrive before 3 p.m.

7. The Gunners acquired a new keeper whereas Spurs acquired a new full-back.

An Introduction To Reasoning — Real World ReasoningAnswers To Select Exercises

Part 1.

2. Smith is a little depressed and sighs: Every day is just like the day before.


4. Jack is eager to go to the park. Henry says: Go get the leash, and then wait with Jim by the front door.

7

Non-Proposition – This is commanding or, less aggressively, instructing

6. Jones is mad at Smith: I hope you trip and break your nose.

Non-Proposition – This is an expression of spite or a curse

8. Bill is just back from the first class of the term and is talking to Henry: Professor White walked into the classroom, passed out the syllabus, and asked "Are there any questions about the mechanics of the class?".

Proposition – Descriptive. (Actually, this is a complex descriptive proposition, made up of three simpler descriptive propositions conjoined with a comma and with an "and". See the section below, on Analyzing.)

10. Bill informs Henry: House M. D. airs on Fox on Monday evenings.

Proposition –Descriptive

12. Jill says to Jack: The Interview stars Seth Rogen and James Franco.


Part 2.1. Sheldon tried to get tickets for ComicCon but did not succeed.

Sheldon tried to get tickets for ComicCon. Sheldon did not succeed (in getting tickets for ComicCon).

2. The Statue of Liberty, which was given to the US by the people of France, is 305 feet tall.The Statue of Liberty was given to the US by the people of France.The Statue of Liberty is 305 feet tall.

3. The Patriots will win the division or the Bears will quality for a wild-card.Cannot be broken up.

2 Classifying & Analyzing1. Reasoning is expressed in propositions and all reasoning involves at

least two propositions. But not every passage involves reasoning, even if it contains two or more propositions. Consider the following:

8

a. One student speaks to another: First, the instructor passed out the syllabus. Then he went over some basic points about reasoning. Then he said we should call it a day.

(a) is a set of propositions describing a temporal sequence of events, and so we might say that the speaker is narrating or reporting. This is not an example of reasoning: none of the propositions provides a reason for something.

2. When confronted with a passage, you need to classify it as piece of reasoning or non-reasoning, and, if you think it is reasoning, analyze it into its target and its reasons. "Target" is the word we use for the thing that is given reasons.

The primary way of distinguishing a piece of reasoning from a piece of non-reasoning is by thinking about whether or not some of sentences are, or contain, propositions which can act as reasons for the target. In other words, you try to make the best sense you can of what the speaker is attempting to do in the passage. If the speaker is giving reasons for believing something or reasons which explain something, the passage presents reasoning. If, like passage (a) above, none of the sentences seem to provide reasons for another of the sentences, the passage is non-reasoning.

All of the reasoning you will see in this chapter will have one target. (In other chapters you will see reasoning with multiple targets.) Even when there is just one target, identifying it can still be tricky because the target is not always given in a separate sentence; sometimes reasons and target appear in the same sentence. Multiple reasons can also be given in a single sentence. The examples in the next sub-section will demonstrate these points.

A second way to distinguish reasoning from non-reasoning is to look for "flag words". By "flag words" we mean words (or phrases) that indicate or "flag" either reasons or target. If a passage contains flag words, the speaker is presenting reasoning.

For example, a speaker will sometimes use some of the vocabulary related to reasoning, which will tip you off that reasoning is involved. For example, a speaker might use the word "reason(s)" itself, as in "That's the reason …" or "The reason I think that is …". This indicates that reasoning is taking place.

There are a number of other words and phrases that indicate either the reasons or the target, and thus indicate reasoning. The following are used to indicate reasons:

because …since …given that …as a result of ...

9

These words/phrases tell you that the speaker is introducing reasons, and as a result you know that reasoning is taking place.

As introductions for the target you might see:

therefore …so …hence …thus …as a result …

Third, the context given in italics at the start of a passage might also give you a clue: think about whether or not the context describes a place or situation where people typically give reasons or have to give reasons such as debates or political talk-shows.

Fourth, and finally, the precise words used in the sentences can indicate reasoning. In particular a word like "should" in the target will indicate that the speaker is trying to get somebody to believe or do something, which typically requires reasons.

3. These flag words help us distinguish the reason(s) and the target. When we analyze a passage, we bracket the reasons and underline the target. We also number all of the propositions (both reasons and target) in the order of appearance. Here is the procedure, one step at a time:

1. Read the passage carefully.

2. Classify the passage as reasoning or non-reasoning by (i) trying to find propositions acting as reasons for a target, (ii) looking for flag words – put flag words in the passage in parentheses, (iii) paying attention to contextual clues, and (iv) paying attention to the precise words used.

3. Explain your classification in writing.

4. If you think reasoning is taking place, underline the target.

5. Bracket each proposition used to express the reasons.

(Note that flag words and phrases are not part of the reasons or target; do not underline them and (if possible) do not bracket them.)

6. Number the propositions expressing the reasons and the target.

4. Here are various examples of passages that have been classified and analyzed in accordance with the procedure above. You will see various flag words in operation and learn how to break up English sentences which

10

contain more than one proposition, whether multiple reasons or reason(s) and target. First:

On a cable sports show: 1 [Cal Ripken has appeared in 19 All-Star games.] 2 [He was a World Series champion in 1983.] 3 [His number has been retired by the Orioles.] (For these reasons,) 4 he deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.


I chose Reasoning for three reasons:1. The words "for these reasons" tell us that reasoning is going on. 2. The word "deserves" in "Cal Ripken deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame." suggests that the speaker is trying to convince the show's audience and give them reasons for accepting his recommendation. The fact that he has accomplished these feats is supposed to be sufficient reason to induct Ripken into the Hall of Fame. 3. Finally, the context – a cable sports show – is the kind of forum where people like to make claims and (hopefully) back them up with reasons.

Step 5 tells you to bracket each reason and step 6 tells you to number the reasons and the target. These are easy to do in this example because each reason and the target is expressed in a separate sentence. But a single English sentence can be made up of a number of simpler sentences. A single sentence can contain multiple reasons or a single sentence can contain both reason(s) and target. Consider the following version of the Cal Ripken passage:

On a cable sports show: Since Cal Ripken has appeared in 19 All-Star games, he was a World Series champion in 1983, and his number has been retired by the Orioles, he deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.

This is a single English sentence but it contains three reasons and a target. The first word is "since", which tells you that a reason or reasons are coming up, but the sentence contains multiple reasons and also contains the target – "Ripken deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.".

Here is another example of a single sentence containing both reasons and target:

During a downpour: 1 It started raining (because) 2 [the atmospheric pressure dropped.]


11

I chose Reasoning because of the flag word "because" and because we can make sense of the passage with the relationship between rain and atmospheric pressure.

In this example, there is only one sentence, and yet there is both a reason and a target.

Flag words are not part of the sentences. So, do not underline them in the target and, if possible, do not bracket them in the reasons. Here is an example where a flag word is not underlined in the target:

A politician on TV: 1 [It takes a despicable person to politicize the death of a young child.] 2 [Smith has tried to tie young Molly's death to the President's policies.] 3 Smith is (therefore) despicable.


I chose Reasoning because there is a flag word "therefore" and we can make sense of the passage by taking the first two sentences as reasons for the third.

The word "therefore" in the target is not underlined, even though it occurs in the middle of the proposition.

Here is an example of a reason embedded within a sentence that begins with a flag-word ("so") that promises the target:

Some people have been able to give up cigarettes by getting serious about their problems and using their willpower. So, since everyone could do this, there's no excuse for anyone who wants to give up cigarettes but hasn't.

The last sentence begins with a "So", which indicates a target, but a "since" immediately follows it and "since" indicates a reason. The reason is "Everyone could do this". The target is then delivered "(So) … there is no excuse for anyone who wants to give up cigarettes but hasn't." The analysis looks like this:

1 [Some people have been able to give up cigarettes by getting serious about their problems and using their willpower.] (So), (since) 2 [everyone could do this,] 3 there's no excuse for anyone who wants to give up cigarettes or lose weight but hasn't.


I chose Reasoning based on the flag words "so" and "since" and because we can make sense of the passage as reasoning, which is basically: some people did it, so everyone can.

12

5. Here again are the six steps we have covered so far and a list of some of the most common flag words. Use these when attempting the exercises that follow.Procedure For Classifying & Analyzing Passages (So Far)


2. By (i) trying to find propositions acting as reasons for a target, (ii) looking for flag words – put flag words in the passage in parentheses, (iii) paying attention to contextual clues, and (iv) paying attention to the precise words used, classify the passage as reasoning or non-reasoning.






Reason Flag Words Target Flag Wordssince … therefore …given that … so …because … hence …after all … thus …

as a result of … as a result …

Exercises

Classify and analyze each passage in accordance with the procedure.

Sample: Jill arrives at the apartment: 1 [Jack's car keys are on the kitchen table] and 2 [there is music coming from his room.] (So), 3 Jack is home.Reasoning, because "so" indicates a target and the other two propositions can serve as reasons. Jill just got home, and she is arriving at a new belief, based on the evidence.

1. A horse-rider pauses to consider the view: Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village. The woods are really filling up with

13

snow! (Based on Robert Frost's 'Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening'.)

2. Bill says to Smith: Foundationalism is false. And if foundationalism is false then coherentism is true. Hence, coherentism is true.

3. Jones says: I owe Henry the fiver he loaned me last week. I have just received my pay. So, I'll pay him back the money.

4. Smith enters an empty room and says: This room is very stuffy. I should open a window.

5. Henry says to Bill: George Foreman says his is the best grill on the market. So, it is the best grill on the market.

6. Henry is at the store, standing in front of a selection of grills: I need a grill. Since the Foreman grill is best, I should get that one.

7. In the New York Times: Out of power for almost seven years, Tony Blair remains defined in many Britons’ eyes by his support for President George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq. (NYTimes)

8. The engineer from the power company announces: The power line fell because the ice that had formed on it weighed a lot.

9. Your dad says to you: You must be honest. Lying disrespects other people and you only end up hurting yourself.

10. In USA Today: Kaymer, who took a 5-shot lead into the final round and didn't let anyone get closer than four on a crispy course baked by sun-drenched skies, completed his wire-to-wire tour de force with a 1-under par-69 to finish at 9-under 271, winning by 8 shots. (USA Today)

11. Henry says to Jones: Bill won the fantasy football league at the office because Tom Brady had three touchdown passes and Gronk had six receptions on Sunday.

Answers To Even Numbers

2. Bill says to Smith: 1 [Foundationalism is false.] And 2 [if foundationalism is false then coherentism is true.] (Hence,) 3 coherentism is true.

Reasoning because the word "hence" indicates a target.

14

4. Smith enters an empty room and says: 1 [This room is very stuffy.] 2 I should open a window.

Reasoning because sentence (1) obviously serves as reason for (2), even though there are no flag words.

6. Henry is at the store, standing in front of a selection of grills: 1 [I need a grill.] (Since) 2 [the Foreman grill is best], 3 I should get that one.

Reasoning because the speaker arrives at a decision to get a Foreman grill, based on the reason – marked with the word "since" – that it is the best

8. The engineer from the power company announces: 1 The power line fell (because) 2 [the ice that had formed on it weighed a lot.]

Reasoning because "because" indicates reasons and (2) is clearly a reason for (1).

10. Kaymer, who took a 5-shot lead into the final round and didn't let anyone get closer than four on a crispy course baked by sun-drenched skies, completed his wire-to-wire tour de force with a 1-under par-69 to finish at 9-under 271, winning by 8 shots. (USA Today)

Non-Reasoning because this is a sports report; it tells us various facts about the winner. There might be an implicit piece of reasoning in that Kaymer won because he took fewer shots but the primary aim of the passage is just to convey information.

3 Advanced Classifying*1. Step 2 asks you to classify passages as Reasoning or Non-

Reasoning. It is possible to be more precise in classifying passages. Reasoning has two modes. (Each of these has some distinctive

language that a speaker might use as a flag word and thus help you classify a passage as reasoning.)

The first mode is when a person takes the propositions as reasons for believing something new, that is, when the reasons justify belief of the target. That is, the reasons (are supposed to) make it reasonable for a person (typically the person the speaker is talking to, but sometimes the speaker herself) to believe something.

The second mode is when the propositions are reasons which causally explain the target, that is, the reasons explain how the target has come to be. The reasons (are supposed to) advance the understanding of the audience.

15

You can think of these two modes as the reasoning we do when we haven't accepted a target and when we already accept it. When justifying, the target has not been accepted – we do not already agree with whatever the target says. When explaining, on the other hand, a target has already been accepted. To put it another way, the point of justification is to add to what we believe, while the point of explaining is to help someone understand why or how something happened.

Here is an example (a) in each mode:

Justifying: Jack did well on the test. So, I should congratulate him.Explaining: I congratulated Jack because he did well on the test.

The fact that Jack did well on the test gives Henry a reason to congratulate him. And if he is asked why he congratulated Jack, he can explain by pointing to the fact that Jack did well on the test.

In this next example (b) a person decides to donate to famine relief. Here it is in each mode:

Justifying: Famine is bad and can be prevented without loss of anything morally comparable. So, I will donate more of my income.

Explaining: I donated more of my income because famine is bad and can be prevented without loss of anything morally comparable.

The target in both of these examples is a decision to do something. In example (c), the target is a new belief:

Justifying: The stable dog did not bark while the horse was being stolen. So, I believe that the thief was someone familiar to the dog.

Explaining: I believe the thief was someone familiar to the dog because the stable dog did not bark while the horse was being stolen.

2. Within the category of justifying belief, we can distinguish between doing so for oneself and presenting the justification to others. This is the difference between inferring and arguing.

In (c), Holmes is using the fact that the dog did not bark as a reason to arrive at a new belief, that the thief was was someone familiar to the dog. He realizes that the dog did not bark and this supports the further belief that the dog knew the thief and Holmes adopts this belief. Holmes is inferring.

The set of propositions made up of the proposition(s) expressing the reason(s) and the proposition that the reasons lead him to believe can be called an inference.

Now compare (c) to the following example:

16

(d) Holmes: The thief was known to the dog. Watson: How can you be sure? Holmes: The dog didn't bark during the theft of the horse.

In (d), by giving the reason that justifies believing that the thief was familiar to the dog, Holmes presents Watson with the inference, that is, with the target and the reasons that he thinks justify belief of the target, so that Watson will follow the inference and adopt its target as a new belief. Holmes is arguing.

In this book, when we talk about arguments and people arguing, we do not mean that they are engaged in a heated exchange of opinions. This is an everyday understanding of argue and argument: we imagine two people shouting at each other with a certain level of insistence and perhaps anger. Such exchanges, however, rarely involve reasons justifying belief in a conclusion. Rather, speakers contradict one another without providing reasons for believing their positions. Ideally, arguing means an attempt to convince another person of the truth of some proposition by the presentation of reasons-to-believe.

The popular meaning of argue is correct insofar as arguing involves non-agreement. People only present inferences to an audience when the audience doesn't already agree with the target. If person A says to person B, "Dublin is the capital of the Irish Republic." and B says, "I agree.", there is agreement and no cause for the presentation of reasons in favor of believing the target. For an argument to take place, then, B must not already agree with the target.

3. The language associated with inferences is sometimes used by speakers and thus alerts you that reasoning is going on.

The words infer and argue themselves might be used by a speaker and thus help you identify that a passage contains reasoning and more specifically a justification for believing, and more specifically still, whether the speaker is inferring or arguing.

Inferring is often done internally, but a person might say out loud "From <this evidence> I infer <the new belief>.". Since inferring is a kind of belief-justification and belief-justification is a kind of reasoning, you can immediately give a complete classification of the passage, as Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Inferring.

Similarly, the word argue (as in "I would argue that …") tells you that arguing, justifying belief, and reasoning is taking place.

When an inference is made by oneself (inferring) or is presented to an audience (arguing), the reason(s) used to justify the new belief or action are expressed in (one or more) propositions called the premise(s). The proposition which expresses this target belief is called the conclusion. The premises justify the conclusion.

The word conclusion or conclude (as in "I conclude …") tells you that reasoning, and more specifically justifying, is taking place. A speaker might explicitly indicate that she is justifying a belief by saying "My argument is

17

…" or "My premises are …" (or justification, the grounds, or the evidence). She might also say "my reasons are …" but you have to be careful with the word reasons since people who are offering an explanation will also talk about reasons. The proposition the speaker is trying to get others to believe – the target, the conclusion – can also be called the point, the contention (and also, incorrectly and super-confusingly, the argument!) and so she might say something like "my conclusion is justified by the reasons …" or "my position is the conclusion of the following inference ...".

In an inference, whether it is made by oneself or presented to others, the premises can be said to (be thought to) justify, support, make likely, imply, establish, demonstrate, or prove, the conclusion, and the conclusion is said to (be thought to) be supported by, be made likely by, be justified by, be implied by, follow from, be derivable from, or be established by the reasons. People who make inferences or present inferences to others can be described as concluding or drawing the conclusion that … .

There are also a variety of words which people use to talk about the quality of inferences, such as valid/invalid, sound/unsound, cogent/incogent. These usually only appear in a passage or dialogue when it moves to the evaluation stage, and they will almost always appear alongside other reasoning words.

4. When people explain they give an explanation. There are various kinds of explanation. In this book we will be

exclusively concerned with causal explanations. A causal explanation is an explanation of how or why some phenomenon (a.k.a. state of affairs, event) comes to be. Phenomena can be specific or general. For example, "This grass is brown." concerns some specific patch of grass, while "Grass turns brown when deprived of sunlight." is about grass in general. Both can be given a causal explanation. The explanation can be of a change in the past – how the continents came to be in their current position or how the computer came to be in the basement – or of a change in the future – why the moon will go dark later tonight – or of a change that comes to be repeatedly – why most trees are bare of leaves each winter.

Explanations of phenomena in the natural world will involve other elements of the natural world. Behavior calls for a causal explanation, and the explanation will be in terms of belief and desire (as well as any factors relevant to the behavior). For example, Henry removed the computer because he believed it was scheduled for repair. Since behavior takes place in the material world, the same phenomenon can involve both kinds of explanation. The question in English phrased either as "How come the dog is outside?" or "Why is the dog outside?" might require both a material factor ("Because the door was open.") and explanation in terms of desires and beliefs ("Because he wanted to run around freely.") Both together explain how the dog came to be outside.

Some More Types Of Explanation

18

An explanation makes something clear. Beyond this book you will encounter various other kinds of explanation besides causal explanation. None of these other kinds of explanation are kinds of reasoning.

Instructions or "how-to" guides make clear how to produce something or perform some activity. For example, to make clear how to produce tied laces, someone might say "To tie your laces, start by crossing one over the other …". To do the hokey-pokey, "Put your left leg in, your left leg out, …".

Definitions: Defining the meaning of a word is an explanation of how to use that word, such as "In Irish, "ríomhaire" means "computer"." or "In English, the word "trustworthy" means "can be relied on as honest".".

Compositional explanations make clear what something is by stating what it is composed of and how those parts are structured, such as "Water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms in a two-to-one ratio.".

In classifying the kind of reasoning in a passage, explicit use of the word explain or explanation (as in "The explanation is simple, …") indicates that reasoning, and more specifically explaining, is taking place. The reasons can be said to (be thought to) explain or give an account of or give a strong explanation for some thing, which is explained by the reasons.

When giving a causal explanation, the sentences being used to explain are also known as the explanans or the explainers or even just the explanation, and what is being explained is called the explainee, or the explanandum or the (target) state of affairs or phenomenon. Cause and effect are also commonly used in the context of causal explanations for the reasons and the target, and the word because is often used to join the two into a single English sentence: This happened because that happened.

5. In dialogues, the reaction of the audience is very helpful in determining whether the speaker is justifying (specifically, arguing) or explaining.

First of all, note that the audience must express doubt or curiosity in order to trigger an argument or an explanation. If speaker A says, "Dublin is the capital of the Irish Republic." and B just says, "I agree.", there is no need to present reasons for a target. For an argument to take place, then, B must request reasons by expressing skepticism about the target proposition. Similarly, if A witnesses a traffic accident and says "I saw a crash on Laskin Road today." and B is not curious about how it happened, A won't need to offer an explanation.

An explanation might be triggered by any expression of curiosity, from intense phrases such as "I'm dying to know why!" or "Wow!", to

19

straightforward requests for an explanation such as "Do you know why that happens?".

There are a wide variety of words that indicate non-agreement. The mildest form of non-agreement is doubt. B might express doubt by saying "It is?", "Really?", or "I am not sure.". A request for reasons such as "Why do you think that?" also expresses doubt. What we might call "denials", such as "I don't believe it.", "I don't think so.", "I think you're wrong.", or simply "No!", indicate that B not only thinks the target is dubious but in fact thinks that it is false.

All of these forms of non-agreement mean that B has another belief(s) which makes B unwilling to accept the target merely because A has said it. In such cases, he will express doubt and ask for reasons. If he is quite confident that A's position is wrong, he might even ridicule A for her belief by saying things like "You've got to be kidding.", "Rubbish!", "Bullshit!", (or even by attacking A's character, such as the rhetorical question "Are you out of your tiny mind?".)

6. Distinguishing between justification and causal explanation can be tricky.

Flag words are of limited help. Consider the following:

The game is cancelled since it is raining heavily.

"Since" is a flag word which indicates a reason ("It is raining heavily.") and so we know that the speaker is reasoning. But it's hard to say whether the speaker is justifying a belief or explaining something. In some contexts, this passage could be an inference, as though the speaker were saying, "Look! It's raining heavily. I guess the game is (or: will be) cancelled.". The speaker presents the fact that it is raining heavily as a reason which justifies the further belief, that the game is cancelled. Alternatively, in other contexts this passage could be an explanation. It would be an explanation if the audience wants to know why the game has been cancelled and the speaker is presenting the fact that it is raining heavily as the cause of the cancellation.

The context of the passage often contains clues. Consider the following scenario:

Jack is at the breakfast table and shows no sign of hurrying. Jill says: You should leave now. It's almost nine a.m. and it takes three hours to get there.

In the context described by the words in italics, Jill is best construed as arguing. Jack's inaction suggests that he does not believe that he needs to leave now and so Jill provides reasons that might convince him. Notice that there are no argument flag words or phrases.

The precise language used can also give you a clue. For example, the word "should" in the conclusion "You should leave now." suggest that Jill is

20

trying to convince Jack. Words such as "ought" and "should" indicate that the speaker is trying to get the audience to believe something that they do not currently believe.

In dialog, you might get a clue from expressions of skepticism. Speakers begin arguing in response to doubt or disbelief expressed by a skeptical audience. If the speaker asserts "Revolver is the Beatles' best album.", the skeptic might express his doubt or disagreement by saying things such as ""It is?", "Really?", "I doubt it." or by requesting reasons with something like "Why do you think that?" (which is different from "Yes. But why is that?" which calls for an explanation). Stronger responses would be "I disagree." or "No way!" or "Bullshit!". An explanation, on the other hand, is produced in response to an expression of curiosity such as "Do you know how/why …?".

Consider the following passages:

Highway repairs begin downtown today. And a bridge lift is scheduled for the middle of rush hour. I predict that traffic is going to be terrible.

Yeah, I know traffic is going to be terrible. It's because repairs begin downtown today. And a bridge lift is scheduled for the middle of rush hour.

The words "I predict" in the first passage suggest the conclusion is a novel belief, (in fact, it's novel even to the speaker – she is making an inference). The second passage starts out with the speaker saying "I know" about what is clearly the target, because of the reasons offered subsequently. In the first, therefore, the speaker is presenting (perhaps only to herself) reasons to believe that the proposition "Traffic is going to be terrible." is true. The second, on the other hand, is an explanation. The speaker is not trying to increase her (or anyone else's) store of knowledge; she is trying to describe connections between states of affairs.

As another example, imagine that Jones says "The reservoir is at a low level because of several releases to protect the downstream ecology.". Jones might intend this as an explanation, but since Smith does not share the belief that the reservoir's water level is low, he will first have to be given reasons for believing that it is low. The conversation might go as follows:

Jones: The reservoir is at a low level because of several releases to protect the downstream ecology.

Smith: Wait. The reservoir is low?Jones: Yeah. I just walked by there this morning. You haven't been

up there in a while?Smith: I guess not.Jones: Yeah, it's because they've been releasing a lot of water to

protect the ecology lately.

21

When challenged, Smith offers evidence from his memory: he saw the reservoir that morning. Once Smith accepts that the water level is low, Jones can restate his explanation.

But you have to be careful with this idea that 'new beliefs are justified; existing beliefs are explained' because a target can be accepted by the audience on the authority of the text/author as soon as it is uttered. In other words, a belief can be adopted very quickly.

This kind of thing happens frequently, such as any time a friend tells you of some new event. Consider the following:

Your friend Bea is on the phone: Kelly is driving me insane. First she told Michael that I was out when I was right there in my room, and then she ate the leftover food I was keeping for lunch today.

In this passage, you accept "Kelly is driving me insane." as soon as your friend says it. You don't need any additional convincing: if Bea says Kelly is driving her insane, that's enough for you to believe it, and Bea expects you to believe it, too. What then follows is then an explanation of how/why it comes to be that Kelly is driving Bea insane.

However, if, for some reason, you express a doubt that Kelly is driving your friend insane (perhaps you suspect your friend of being overly dramatic), Bea would have to convince you, and she would offer the propositions that follow as reasons to convince you.

7. On the next two pages you'll find our procedure (so far) for classifying a passage, with an enhanced version of step 2, and a summary of flag words and vocabulary associated with belief-justification and explanation.

Procedure For Classifying & Analyzing Passages (So Far)


2. By (i) trying to find propositions acting as reasons for a target, (ii) looking for flag words – put flag words in the passage in parentheses, (iii) paying attention to contextual clues, and (iv) paying attention to the precise words used, classify the passage as reasoning or non-reasoning, and (if reasoning) as Justifying Belief or as Causally Explaining, and (if Justifying Belief) as Inferring or Arguing. If you think that the passage is not a piece of reasoning, try to say what the speaker is doing with her words.



22

5. If you think reasoning is taking place, bracket each proposition used to express the reasons.



Here is step 2 in the form of a decision-tree:

(Some) Vocabulary Associated With Reasoning

Reason Flag Words Target Flag Wordssince … therefore …for … so …given that … hence …because … thus …

as a result …

Vocabulary Of Inferring & Arguing Vocabulary Of ExplainingThese reasons justify/support the belief … These are the reasons that

explain ... premise the cause(s), explainerconclusion the effect, explainee,

phenomenonI infer … She explained … inference explanationI would argue …argument

Exercises

23

(i) Classify and analyze each passage in accordance with the procedure. Sample: Henry arrives at work late: 1 [Bill is not here]. 2 [He very rarely arrives

late.] (So,) 3 he is not coming in today.

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Inferring. Reasoning because of the flag word "so". More specifically Justifying, and even more specifically, Inferring, because the conclusion is something that Henry did not already believe – he just arrived at work and inferred from Bill's absence and his track record that he would not come in at all.

(ii) No, the reasons on offer could not be used to explain the target. Henry's prior experience tells him that lateness is a reliable sign of Bill not coming in at all, but it does not tell him why Bill is not coming in. (1) Jack is reading a popular science magazine. It says: People who rate

themselves as "very happy" are less successful financially than those who rate themselves as "moderately happy". He then says to himself, "Huh! It seems that a little unhappiness is financially beneficial."

(2) Bill works something out for himself: You have to be smart to understand the rules of Dungeons & Dragons. Most smart people are nerds. So, I bet most people who play D&D are nerds.

(3) Henry is lamenting to his friend Bill. I can't stand it any more. I'll tell you why: I'm tired of living all alone. No one ever calls me on the phone. And my landlady tried to hit me with a mop. (Based on Lou Reed's 'I Can't Stand It', from "Lou Reed".)

(4) Two teenaged friends are talking. Track what Saida says.Saida: I can't go to the show tonight.Jordan: Bummer.Saida: I know! My mother wouldn't let me go out when I asked.

(5) A mother is speaking to her teenage son. Analyze only the mother's words.

Mother: You have to stay in tonight.Son: OK. But why, mom?Mother: Because you have to do your homework.

(6) An economist is speaking to a colleague: Any time the public receives a tax rebate, consumer spending increases. The public just received a tax rebate. Therefore, consumer spending will increase.

(7) In a letter to the editor. Today's kids are all slackers. American society is doomed.

(8) On the ESPN web-site: Duke beat Butler 61-59 for the national championship Monday night. Gordon Hayward's half-court, 3-point heave for the win barely missed to leave tiny Butler one cruel basket short of the Hollywood ending. (Based on an article from espn.go.com)

24

(9) Two detectives: Marple: Henry stole the computer. Poirot: No! Marple: His fingerprints were found on it.

(10) On Monday, Jack receives a note that his unit ships to Iraq in two days: I was hoping to go to Henry's birthday party next weekend. But I'm shipping out on Wednesday. So, I will miss it.

(11) A student is speaking to her instructor: Yes, I was late for class. It is because the battery in my mobile phone ran out.

(12) Smith and Jones: Smith: There is a lot of positive talk concerning parenthood. Jones: Yup. Smith: It's because people tend to think about the positive effects that

have a child brings. And they tend to exclude the numerous negatives that it brings.

Answers To Even Numbers

(2) Bill works something out for himself: 1 [You have to be smart to understand the rules of Dungeons & Dragons.] 2 [Most smart people are nerds.] (So,) (I bet) most people who play D&D are nerds.

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Inferring. "So" indicates a target and so Reasoning. "I bet" sounds like someone coming to a new belief, which suggests Justifying Belief and Inferring; there is also no one else mentioned, which suggests Inferring.

(4) Two teenaged friends are talking. Track what Saida says.Saida: 1 I can't go to the show tonight.Jordan: Bummer.Saida: I know! 2 [My mother wouldn't let me go out when I asked.]

Reasoning – Causally Explaining. There are no flag words, but the best way to make sense of this passage is to take (2) to be a reason for (1). More specifically Explaining because Jordan is going to believe Saida right away because they are friends. So Saida doesn’t need to prove that she can’t go to the show. She merely needs to explain why she can’t go to the show.

(6) An economist is speaking to a colleague: 1 [Any time the public receives a tax rebate, consumer spending increases.] 2 [The public just received a tax rebate], (Therefore,) 3 consumer spending will increase.

25

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Arguing. Reasoning because “therefore” is a flag word that indicates the target. It could more specifically be Causally Explaining but I have chosen Justifying Belief – Arguing because of the word "will", which suggests a prediction that isn't certain to come true. The increase in spending hasn’t happened yet, so the audience needs to be convinced by the economist that it will happen. If the increase in spending had already happened, and the audience already believe it, then the economist would be explaining. In general, if the target is a prediction, then the passage is likely to be an argument, because the audience doesn’t already know the future.

(8) On the ESPN web-site: Duke beat Butler 61-59 for the national championship Monday night. Gordon Hayward's half-court, 3-point heave for the win barely missed to leave tiny Butler one cruel basket short of the Hollywood ending. (Based on an article from espn.go.com)

Non-Reasoning because this is just telling a story about something that happened. But it possibly contains a causal explanation of how Duke won: 'the last shot was a miss and then Duke won' can be understood as 'the last shot was a miss and so (as a result, as an effect of this cause) Duke won'.

(10) On Monday, Jack receives a note that his unit ships to Iraq in two days: 1 [I was hoping to go to Henry's birthday party next weekend.] But 2 [I'm shipping out on Wednesday.] (So,) 3 I will miss it.

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Inferring. Reasoning because “so” indicates a target and it makes sense to think of the other sentences as reasons for the target. Justifying Belief (and even more specifically, Inferring) because Jack learns a fact, in this case that he is shipping out, and then infers another fact, that he will miss the party.

(12) Smith and Jones: Smith: There is a lot of positive talk concerning parenthood. Jones: Yup. Smith: It's because people tend to think about the positive effects that

have a child brings. And they tend to exclude the numerous negatives that it brings.

Reasoning – Causally Explaining. Reasoning because “because” indicates a reason and it makes sense to think of Smith's second sentences as reasons for the target. Explaining because Jones agrees immediately and doesn't require convincing.

4 More About Analyzing – Rewriting Sentences

26

1. In this section, we add one final step to the procedure for classifying and analyzing passages.

Step 7 requires that each reason or target must be in the form of a proposition. This step will be important when you turn (in other chapters) to evaluating the reasoning, that is, the strength of the connection between reasons and target.

Consider the following version of the willpower argument:

Some people have been able to give up cigarettes by using their willpower. Everyone can draw on their willpower. That's why it's possible for anyone who wants to give up cigarettes to do so.

The words "do so" at the end of the conclusion abbreviate the thought that those who use willpower can give up cigarettes. But there is no need for the speaker to repeat this to the listener. When you analyze the passage into separate propositions for each of the premises and the conclusion you must provide each proposition in full. Our analysis looks like this:

1 [Some people have been able to give up cigarettes by using their willpower.] 2 [Everyone can draw on their willpower.] (That's why) 3 it's possible for anyone who wants to give up cigarettes to do so.

In 3, "to do so" = "to give up cigarettes."

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Arguing, because many people struggle to give up cigarettes and might doubt that it is possible for them.

(Clarifying the meaning of the propositions involved is an important preliminary to ascertaining whether or not the premises are true. See section 5 of Basic Evaluation for more discussion of how unclear meaning can cause problems.)

There are many ways in which speakers will avoid repeating themselves. Most commonly, look out for sentences containing pronouns (such as "I", "you", "they"), demonstrative adjectives (such as "this", "those"), or adverbs like "so" in the example above.

2. As mentioned in the section above on basic classifying and analyzing, conjunctions and commas can be used to add additional propositions to a sentence. In that section, those additional propositions were stated in full, but speakers often abbreviate.

For example, Jill might say:

Jack was there, Smith was there, and Jones was there.

but more naturally she might say

Jack, Smith, and Jones were there.

27

Similarly, the sentence "Jack went to the park with Jim, his leash, a tennis ball, and some treats." should be broken down into four simple propositions: "Jack went to the park with Jim." "Jack went to the park with Jim's leash.", "Jack went to the park with a tennis ball." and "Jack went to the park with some treats.".

3. Relative pronouns can also be used to give additional information in a single English sentence. Consider the sentence "Jack, who is home on leave from the war, is taking Jim for a walk.". This sentence contains two propositions and should be broken up into "Jack is home on leave from the war." and "Jack is taking Jim for a walk.".

4. A change in wording is required when, as part of a larger sentence, a proposition is expressed as a verbal noun or a noun phrase. Compare:

Jack's serving in the Army is explained by his admiration for his father.

Jack is serving in the Army because he admires his father.

The first involves a verbal noun ("Jack's serving in the Army") and a noun phrase "his admiration for his father"); the second involves two propositions ("Jack is serving in the Army." and "Jack admires his father."). As part of step 7 of your analysis, make a note turning such phrasings into propositions. The first version would be analyzed as follows:

(1) Jack's serving in the Army (is explained by) (2) [his admiration for his father.]

(1) = Jack is serving in the Army.(2) = Jack admires his father.

Reasoning – Causally Explaining, due to the flag phrase "is explained by".

5. In section 1 of this chapter we learned to distinguish between propositions (the kind of sentence a speaker utters when she is proposing a description of the world or proposing a course of action) and non-propositions of various kinds (the kind of sentences a speaker utters when she wants to do something else).

Some non-propositions have what we call implied propositional content. An implied proposition is one that the speaker must believe in order to say whatever it is she is saying. Here are some examples of non-propositions and the implied proposition:

a. Jill says: 1 [Jack, you let go of the leash]. 2 I blame you for Jim's escape!

1= Jack let go of the leash.2 = Jack is to blame for Jim's escape.

28

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Inferring. Jill uses the information in (1) to arrive at a new belief, that Jack is to blame.

b. A neighboring garden has an unwelcome visitor: 1 [Jim is trampling on my vegetables!]. 2 Get out of my garden!

2 = Jim should get out of my garden.


c. Jones is talking Henry: 1 [I realize now that the computer was scheduled for repair.] 2 I am sorry that I accused you of stealing it.

1 = Jones realizes now that the computer was scheduled for repair. 2 = Jones is sorry that he accused Henry of stealing it.


In (a), the (alleged!) fact that Jack let go of the leash gives Jill a reason to blame him. In (b), the fact that Jim is trampling on the neighbor's vegetables gives the neighbor reasons to order him out of the garden. In (c), Jones's realization gives him a reason for apologizing.

6. There is a kind of question that has an implied propositional content. This kind of question is called a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question assumes an answer to the question asked. This implied answer is a proposition, and so the question can be understood as this proposition. Consider the following passage:

After death, there is no more perception. Pain is only painful when it is perceived. So, why fear death?

The third sentence is a question, but it is a rhetorical question. The speaker thinks that the answer to this question is obvious and the speaker wants the audience to think of that answer, rather than the question itself. In this case, the implied answer to the question is "There is no reason to fear death.". We (classify and) analyzing as follows:

1 [After death, there is no more perception.] 2 [Pain is only painful when it is perceived.] (So), 3 why fear death?

(3) = There is no reason to fear death.

29

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Arguing, because most people do fear death and reasons will be given to convince them not to. The question form of the target suggests that the speaker is asking someone else to consider her reasons for believing the target.

(The conclusion of the argument just above might alternatively have been presented in the form of a command, "Do not fear death!", which could be understood as the practical proposition "You should not fear death.", like example (b), above.)

7. Finally, speakers will sometimes put practical propositions in the form of a question. For example, "Can you please pass the salt?" is really the practical proposition "You should pass the salt." and "What about coming to the game with me this weekend?" is really the practical proposition "You should come to the game with me this weekend.". A question is perceived as being a polite way of suggesting to someone that they do something.

5 More About Analyzing — Things To Omit

1. A passage might contain extra words that don't play a part in the reasoning and which need not be included in an analysis of a passage. This section alerts you to various items you can ignore and omit in your analysis. As a result, the job of identifying the reasons and the target might be more accurately described as extracting the reasons and the target from the passage.

2. If a sentences is repeated in a passage it gets the same proposition number in both places. Particularly when arguing, the target often appears more than once. But this is only for emphasis; the additional appearance does not add a new proposition. (This is also true for reasons — if a speaker repeats a reason, she does not add any new information and you should use the same number for both appearances.)

Consider the following example: A human resources director at Acme Inc. is arguing with the chief executive: 1 We should have an affirmative action policy. (Here's why.) 2 [Research has confirmed that employers do not review black job applications as thoroughly as applications from whites.] 3 [This leads black people to invest less in education and training, which only reinforces the prejudice of employers.] 4 [Affirmative action counteracts this vicious cycle by acting as an incentive for African-Americans to invest in education.] (So), 1 we should have an affirmative action policy.

(1) "we" = Acme Inc.(3) "this" = Employers not reviewing black job applications as thoroughly leads ...

30

Reasoning – Justifying – Arguing, because the "should" in the target suggests that the speaker is trying to convince the audience.

The (single) target appears twice, at the opening of the inference and at the end. When a target appears in the middle of a set of sentences, it is often because the speaker or writer then goes on to provide additional reasons in support of the conclusion.

3. Another kind of extraneous words are words or phrases (or even propositions) which comment on the quality of the strength of the support that premises give to the conclusion, or comment on how good the explanation is. These are not part of any proposition and should be ignored or re-written. Consider the following passage:

There's smoke coming from that chimney, and there would be smoke coming from that chimney if there were a fire in a fireplace in that house. Thus, in all probability, there is a fire in a fireplace in that house.

The phrase "in all probability" is the speaker's comment on the strength of the support that the premises give the conclusion. Such comments are ignored in our analysis of the argument. Analyze as follows, placing the (3) that numbers the conclusion after this comment:

1 [There's smoke coming from that chimney,] and 2 [there would be smoke coming from that chimney if there were a fire in a fireplace in that house.] (Thus in all probability,) 3 there is a fire in a fireplace in that house.

Reasoning – Justifying Belief – Inferring, because the context would have to be an unseen fireplace. Could be Arguing but there is no context.

4. For emphasis, speakers will sometimes tell the audience that they think or believe what they are saying. Often they will say that they strongly believe what they are saying and raise their voices and pound the table. Consider the following:

Well, I say that Jack is a low-down cheat. So, he is likely to cheat when you play poker with him this weekend.

The fact that "I say that Jack is a low-down cheat." might be thought irrelevant; what's important, as a reason supporting the conclusion, is that Jack is a low-down cheat. Analyze without including "I say that", as follows:

I say that 1 [Jack is a low-down cheat.] (So,) 2 he is likely to cheat when you play poker with him this weekend.

31

(2) "he" = "Jack"(2) "you" = the audience

Reasoning (justifying) because this is probably also a warning to an unsuspecting friend.

(Notice also that the target is simply "Jack will cheat when ..."; the words "is likely to" aren't part of the proposition, they are the speaker's commentary on the degree to which she believes the conclusion.)

Similarly, when someone says "I order you to stop playing video games." (rather than simply "Stop playing video games.") we are probably meant to understand this sentence as an order, rather than as a proposition about the person's ordering.

Sometimes, however, the mental attitude is relevant. Consider the following explanation:

Jill believes that Jack is a low-down cheat. That's why she did not invite him to play poker this weekend.

In this example, the fact that Jill believes something about Jack is relevant to the target explainee. Analyze as follows:

1 [Jill believes that Jack is a low-down cheat.] (That's why) 2 she did not invite him to play poker this weekend.

(2) "she" = Jill(2) "him" = Jack

Reasoning (explaining), because of the flag phrase.

This issue of whether the mental attitude is important is sometimes called the 'problem of saying' even though the problem occurs not just with saying but with believing or anything similar.

5. Another source of extraneous verbiage is that speakers might seem to simply wander off and insert a tangent or parenthetical remark. Consider the following argument:

Potatoes are vegetables. They're my favorite vegetable, in fact. And vegetables are good for you. So, potatoes are good for you.

The fact that potatoes are the speaker's favorite vegetable will be immediately thought to be irrelevant to the support for the conclusion given by the other premises. If you are confident in this judgment, you can analyze as follows:

1 [Potatoes are vegetables.] They're my favorite vegetable, in fact. And 2 [vegetables are good for you.] (So,) 3 potatoes are good for you.

32

If you are not confident, analyze as follows:

1 [Potatoes are vegetables.] 2 [They're my favorite vegetable], in fact. And 3 [vegetables are good for you.] (So,) 4 potatoes are good for you.

Here is another example, this time in a dialogue:Al, a fireman, has been killed in a fire.

Henry: Although the body is badly burned, I am sure this is the body of my friend Al.

Bill: How do you know? Henry: These are the boots of his father, which his father gave to

him after he stopped working in the coal mines. Bill: But anyone could have boots like that. Henry: No. These have a quite distinctive pattern on the sides.

There is clearly reasoning here: Bill asks for reasons to justify belief of the target claim that the body is Al's body. But what are the reasons? The reason for thinking that the body is Al's is that the boots are so distinctive that they could only be Al's. However, the information that the boots previously belonged to Al's father, who worked as a coal miner, seems irrelevant. If you are confident in this judgment, the relevant parts would simply be: Al wore boots with a distinctive pattern on the sides. This body has boots with that distinctive pattern on the sides. So, this is the body of Al.

6. You can also omit the words that speakers use to describe the quality of their reasoning. Usually, speakers add words of confidence, though they could add words of uncertainty. For example, if the target is expressed as "Jack must be at the station." you should rewrite as "Jack is at the station.". Similarly, if the target is expressed as "So these are probably Al's boots." you can omit the "probably" and analyze as "(So) 1 these are probably Al's boots.".

7. Overall, be cautious when thinking about excluding words or propositions from your analysis. You can discard information only when you are confident that the information is not needed in order to support the conclusion or explain the explainee. When reasoning is complicated, it can be difficult to tell how, or whether, a proposition is involved. In these cases, it is usually a good practice to include all of the sentences in the passage in your analysis, even though it might turn out that they are unneeded.

Notice that we have strayed into the territory of evaluation, rather than analysis. To take the dialogue about identifying Al by his boots, above, as an example, the reason you might throw out the information that the boots belonged to Al's father is that you are already thinking about how boots might be used to identify a body, and have thus moved from the classification and analysis of reasoning to its evaluation.

8. Let's end the chapter with some more straying, by talking about obviously bad reasoning. It is possible that a set of propositions with no

33

apparent relation between reasons and target should be understood as a piece of reasoning, if flag words or the context demand it. For example, imagine someone says:

Stocks are up this morning. And so, the Yankees will beat the Red Sox in this afternoon's game.

The flag word "so" indicates a target and that the speaker is reasoning and that he thinks there is some connection between the first proposition ("Stocks are up this morning.") and the second ("The Yankees will beat the Red Sox in this afternoon's game."), though the mind struggles to understand how "Stocks are up this morning." in any way justifies or explains the proposition "The Yankees will beat the Red Sox in this afternoon's game.". It is possible that the speaker does not understand how to use the word "so". It is also possible, on the other hand, that the speaker sees some connection between the two that the audience does not, and so you stand to learn something from the speaker. You might thus err on the side of caution and take the speaker as being sincere when he uses "so" and treat what he says as reasoning.

Exercises

For each passage, perform steps 1-7 of the procedure as it appears at the end of the chapter. Explain any omissions in writing.

Remember: the basic idea of these sections is that every reason and target (everything you bracket or underline) should be in propositional form and make sense on its own, no matter who is reading it. Sample:Jill arrives at the apartment: 1 [Jack's car keys are on the kitchen table.] 2 [There is music coming from his room.] (So), 3 Jack is home.(2) = There is music coming from Jack's room.


Reasoning (and more specifically justifying and even more specifically, inference) because of the flag word "so" and in the context Jill has just arrived home and is coming to a realization based on what she sees.1. Jack has gone to his locker to get a book called Intellectual Virtues, but

is having trouble finding it: That book has to be in here somewhere. I saw it just yesterday.

2. Smith is arguing with Jones: Lookit! The variation in plant species is perfectly explained by Darwin's theory. So, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Darwin's theory is true.

34

3. Jill's teacher is talking to her parents: Jill's low score was due to lack of studying.

4. Jill is forming a resolution: I shouldn't eat anything that comes from something that once had a face. The chicken we eat comes from chickens, and chickens have faces. Therefore, I won't eat chicken.

5. Smith wants to know why her grade in Methods Of Logic was a "D". Her instructor says: You earned a "D" due to lack of studying, too many classes missed for athletics, and failure to do half of the quizzes.

6. Henry has just read an article about eating junk food and is wondering whether chocolate is healthy. Most people eat chocolate. Human biology has adapted so that we don't normally eat things that are dangerous. So, chocolate is not dangerous.

7. Jones, talking to Smith, takes a position on the talent in N.W.A. Of the members of N.W.A., only a few had any real talent. Dr. Dre still makes money in the recording industry, and Ice Cube made a nice career out of acting later on. But I bet you can't think of any other member who is still well-known.

8. Jack is at the park, with Jim the Great Dane, in winter. Jim is off his leash. Don't play in that yellow snow, Jim! Another dog has peed in it.

9. Jack and Jill are at a restaurant. Analyze Jack's reasoning:Jack: Young children should not be allowed in restaurants after

dinner time.Jill: Why is that?Jack: Late at night, young children tend to get cranky, and when they get cranky they create a fuss, which other people in the restaurant can hear.Jill: I agree, but that hardly stops them from eating.Jack: Yeah, but it's not just about eating. Many adults who go out to eat at night are attempting to have a conversation and the noise of children can ruin that conversation.

10. John McCain, a presidential candidate in the U.S. in 2008, was reportedly not familiar with the internet. After sharing this with Jack, Jill says to Jack: After all, he is 72, and lots of folks McCain's age aren't familiar with the internet. That's why he doesn't know how to get on-line.

Answers To 2, 4, 6

35

2. Smith is arguing with Jones: Lookit! 1 [The variation in plant species is perfectly explained by Darwin's theory.] (So,) it's obvious to anyone with a brain that 2 Darwin's theory is true.

Reasoning (justifying), as stated in the context, Smith is arguing, which is a version of justifying.

Ignore and exclude the “lookit!” and the abuse after “so”."it's obvious …" is omitted

4. Jill is forming a resolution: 1 [I shouldn't eat anything that comes from something that once had a face.] 2 [The chicken we eat comes from chickens], and 3 [chickens have faces.] (Therefore,) 4 I won't eat chicken.

(1), (4) "I" = Jill

Reasoning (justifying), because Jill is trying to convince herself to do something she doesn’t currently do – not eat chicken. The context gives a clue: "resolution".

6. Henry has just read an article about eating junk food and is wondering whether chocolate is healthy. 1 [Most people eat chocolate.] 2 [Human biology has adapted so that we don't normally eat things that are dangerous.] (So,) 3 chocolate is not dangerous.

Reasoning (justifying and more specifically inferring). Henry infers that chocolate is healthy from the information in the article. (He probably knows this already, but is adding to his confidence.)

6 Summary — Classifying & Analyzing Reasoning

Classifying & Analyzing – Seven Step Procedure1. Read the passage carefully.

2. By (i) trying to find propositions acting as reasons for a target, (ii) looking for flag words – put flag words in the passage in parentheses, (iii) paying attention to contextual clues, and (iv) paying attention to the precise words used, classify the passage as reasoning or non-reasoning, and (if reasoning) as Justifying Belief or as Causally Explaining, and (if Justifying Belief) as Inferring or Arguing. If you think that the passage is not a piece of reasoning, try to say what the speaker is doing with her words.

3. Explain in writing your classification in writing.

36





7. Note in writing any changes that need to be made in order to make each proposition make sense on its own.

When a passage requires a lot of work to analyze into its premises and conclusion and in particular, to present each proposition clearly (step 7), it can be a better strategy to make a written list of the (modified) propositions, rather than numbering them in the passage and adding notes.

(Some) Vocabulary Associated With Reasoning

Reason Flag Words Target Flag Wordssince … therefore …because … so …given that … hence …after all … thus …as a result of … as a result …

Vocabulary Of Inferring & Arguing Vocabulary Of ExplainingThese reasons justify/support the belief … These are the reasons that

explain ... premise the cause(s),

explainerconclusion the effect, explainee,

phenomenonI infer … She explained … inference explanationI would argue …argument

web viewclassifying & analyzing reasoning. 1 sentences & propositions. 1. there are many...

Documents