INTRODUCTION

During this week, you are fine-tuning your ability to analyze arguments. Before reading the following helpful hints, you should read Chapter Three from our textbook. As you practice this week, you'll be focusing on the following question:

1) What Type of Argument is this passage?

BACKGROUND AND PREPARATION

Up to this point in our semester, we've been fine-tuning our ability to recognize arguments, analyze their conclusion and premises, and determine if a premise is clear and relevant. Starting next week, will be fine-tuning our ability to determine if a clear and relevant premise provides enough evidence.

When we discuss this next week, we will learn that it's not about how enough evidence, but enough of the right kind of evidence. In the end, there are different kinds of reasoning, different types of arguments. As such, to prepare for next week's lesson, it's good to begin by learning about different types of arguments.

NOT FALLACIES

To recognize the type of argument found in an example is not to identify a fallacy. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, a premise that fails to address an issue. Identifying a passage's type of argument is to recognize how it is reasoning. It's analygous to asking what type of movie something is. Is it a comedy? Is it a horror movie? Is it a historical drama or fantasy? To recognize what type of movie you're watching is not the same as recognizing any flaws in the film. Similarly, to recognize what type of argument you're encountereing is not the same as recognizing any fallacies in the argument. This week, we are not evaluating arguments. We are analyzing arguments.

There are many different types of arguments. During our semester, we will be learning about ten of them:

HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

A Hypothetical Syllogism is a three-line argument relying upon a hypothetical statement. That is, it has exactly two premises and a conclusion; and at least one of the premises is a hypothetical statement or conditional statement. Considering the following examples. First:

If Janice asked questions about confusing examples, she'll get a good grade on the quiz; and she asked questions about confusing examples; so she'll get a good grade on the quiz.

Second:

If Janice was confused about practice examples, then she asked her teacher questions; and she got a good grade if she asked her teacher questions. Therefore, Janice got a good grade if she was confused about practice examples.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A Categorical Syllogism is a three-line argument relying upon a categorical statement. That is, it has exactly two premises and a conclusion; and at least one of the premises is a categorical statement (i.e., a claim asserting or denying that a character trait is true for all or some members of a group). Considering the following examples. First:

All SRJC students have to take Critical Thinking; and Marvin is a SRJC student. Therefore, he has to take Critical Thinking.

Second:

Some SRJC students have to take Critical Thinking; and Marvin is a SRJC student. So, he has to take Critical Thinking.

Third:

No SRJC students have to take Critical Thinking; and Marvin is a SRJC student. Hence, he doesn't have to take Critical Thinking.

Fourth:

All SRJC transfer students have to take Critical Thinking; and all SRJC Philosophy majors are transfer students. It follows that all SRJC Philosophy majors have to take Critical Thinking.

ARGUMENT BY ELIMINATION

An Argument by Elimination has at least two premises. At least one of them is an Disjunctive Statement; and at least one is a negation. Disjunctive statements list two or more options, claiming that at least one of them is true. It usually relies on the "Or" to identify its options. The negation claims that at least one of the disjunctive's options isn't true. Consider the following examples. First:

Jake either was going to Annadel State Park or Armstrong Woods; but he didn't go to Armstrong Woods; so he went to Annadel.

Second:

Jake was going to Muir Woods or Armstrong Wood; so he went to Armstrong, since he didn't got Muir.

Third:

Jake went to Muir Woods unless he went to Angel Island; and he didn't go to Angel Island. Therefore, he went to Muir.

Fourth:

Jake was going to Angel Island, Sugarloaf State Park, or Muir Woods; but he couldn't go to Angel Island or Muir Woods; so he's going to Sugarloaf.

ARGUMENT BASED UPON MATHEMATICS

Arguments based on Mathematics support a conclusion through a mathematical calculation. Consider the following examples. First:

My sandwich was $5.00; and my drink was $1.50. Therefore, I owe $6.50.

Second:

I had $10; but I spent $5 on my sandwich. Therefore, I have $5 left.

Third:

The pizza was $20.00; and we each had 1/4th of; so we each owe $5.00.

Fourth:

The bus costs $40 a month; and I need to use it 10 months a year; so I have to budget $400 a year for the bus.

Containing a number is not what makes the above Arguments based on Mathematics. Consider the following example:

If I owe you $5, I can't go to the movie; and I still owe you $5. So I can't go to the movie.

This argument contains numbers; but it is not an Argument based on Mathematics. It is a Hypothetical Syllogism. Arguments Based on Mathematics support their conclusion by calculation, for example adding, subtracting, dividing, or multiplying.

PREDICTIVE ARGUMENT

A Predictive Argument supports a conclusion that's a prediction (i.e., a claim that something will happen in the future), by appealing to one or more premises that refer to a sample. There are multiple ways to refer to a sample. Consider the following examples. First:

Juan has ordered a pizza every Friday for the last three months; so I think it's safe to say he'll order one this Friday.

Second:

I've seen Juan order a hundred pizzas over the years; so I think I know what I'm talking about when I say the next pizza he orders will be pepperoni.

Third:

I've seen Juan order pizzas on weekdays and weekends, during the day and at night, during parties and when he's alone; and he's usually ordered cheese pizza. Therefore, I think it's safe to say the next pizza he orders will be cheese.

INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION

An Inductive Generalization supports a conclusion that's a generalization (i.e., a claim that a trend occurs), by appealing to one or more premises that refer to a sample. There are multiple ways to refer to a sample. Consider the following examples. First:

Juan has ordered a pizza every Friday for the last year; so I think it's safe to say he orders pizza on most Fridays.

Second:

I've seen Juan order a hundred pizzas over the years; so I think I know what I'm talking about when I say he usually orders pepperroni pizzas.

Third:

I've seen Juan order pizzas on weekdays and weekends, during the day and at night, during parties and when he's alone; and he's always ordered cheese pizza. Therefore, I think it's safe to say he always orders cheese pizza.

CAUSAL ARGUMENT

A Causal Argument supports a conclusion that's a causal explanation, by appealing to at least one of the following types of premises: 1) A premise attempting to establish a correlation between the cause and effect; 2) A premise attempting to falsify an alternative causal explanation.

Most causal arguments have at least one premise attempting to establish a correlation (i.e., a link) between the cause and effect. Some causal arguments have multiple premises attempting to establish a correlation; and some have one or more premises attempting to falsify an alternative causal explanation. Consider the following examples. First:

I'm pretty sure the butler killed Mrs. White; for she died from a knife wound; and the butler was found holding a knife with her blood on it.

Second:

I'm pretty sure the butler killed Mrs. White; for she died from a knife wound; the knife still was in Mrs. White's corpse; and the butler's fingerprints were found on the knife.

Third:

I'm pretty sure the butler killed Mrs. White. First, she died from a knife wound; the knife still was in Mrs. White's corpse; and the butler's fingerprints were found on the knife. Second, the maid was the only other person in the house when Mrs. White died; and the maid's fingerprints weren't on the knife.

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY

An Argument by Analogy relies on premises that establish an analogy (a comparison establishing some similarity); in order to conclude another similarity. For example:

History 1A was a writing-intensive course; and so is Philosophy 6. You got an A in History 1A. Therefore, it's safe to say you deserve an A in Philosophy 6.