Nevada] victory Tuesday allowing her to bring a service dog in training to her music class.
SECTION D Definitions 29
One dissenting justice warned, however, that the majority opinion could have far-
reaching consequences for public employers ranging from hospitals to bakeries.
The majority decision, written by Justice Cliff Young, interprets a state law prohibi-
ting a public place from refusing admittance to a person training a service dog as applying to
employees as well as the public. The majority also found the school is a public place.
Las Vegas Review-Journal, September, 1996
Analysis The court has to decide the meaning of vague language by giving
definitions. The definition can be explicit. Or the definition can be implicit: After
enough cases have been decided it becomes pretty clear what the court thinks the
words (ought to) mean.
Good definition A good definition satisfies both:
. The words doing the defining are clear and better understood
than the word or phrase being defined.
. The words being defined and the defining phrase can be used
interchangeably. That is, it's correct to use the one exactly
when it's correct to use the other.
The key to making a good definition is to look for examples where the
definition does or does not apply, in order to make sure that it is not too broad or too
narrow. For example, suppose we want to define "school cafeteria." That's
something a lawmaker might need in order to write a law to disburse funds for a food
program. As a first go, we might try "A place in a school where students eat." But
that's too broad, since that would include just a room where students can take their
meals. So we might try "A place in a school where students can buy a meal." But
that's too broad, too, since that would include a room where you could buy a
sandwich from a vending machine. How about "A room in a school where students
can buy a hot meal that is served on a tray"? But if there's a fast-food restaurant like
Burger King at the school, that would qualify. So it looks like we need "A room in a
school where students can buy a hot meal that is served on a tray, and the school is
responsible for the preparation and selling of the food." This looks better, though if
adopted as a definition in a law, it might keep schools that want money from the
legislature from contracting out the preparation of their food. Whether that's too
narrow will depend on how the lawmakers intend the money to be spent.
30 CHAPTER 2 What Are We Arguing About?
Steps in making a good definition
• Show the need for a definition.
• State the definition.
• Make sure the words make sense.
• Give examples where the definition applies.
• Give examples where the definition does not apply.
• If necessary, contrast it with other likely definitions.
• Possibly revise your definition.
Exercises for Section D
1. Classify the following as a definition, a persuasive definition, or neither. If it is a
definition, state why you think it is good or bad.
a. "Dog" means "a canine creature that brings love and warmth to a human family."
b. Domestic violence is any violent act by a spouse or lover directed against his or her
partner within the confines of the home of both.
c. A feminist is someone who thinks that women are better than men.
d. A conservative, in politics, is one who believes that we should conserve the political
structure and laws as they are as much as possible, avoiding change.
e. A liberal is someone who wants to use your taxes to pay for what he thinks will do
others the most good.
f. Love is blind.
g. Sexual intercourse is when a man and a woman couple sexually with the intent of
producing offspring.
h. Less-developed countries (LDCs) The economies of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. (From an economics textbook)
2. For each of the following, give both a definition and a persuasive definition:
a. Homeless person.
b. Spouse.
c. School bus.
3. For each of the following, replace "believes in" with other words that mean the same: a. Zoe believes in free love.
b. Dick believes in God.
c. Zoe believes in the Constitution.
d. Zoe believes in herself.
4. What is required of a good definition?
5. Why should we avoid persuasive definitions?
6. Bring in an example of a definition used in one of your other courses. Is it good?
EXERCISES for Section D 31
7. What term is being defined in the following passage? State the definition explicitly.
Fasting and very low calorie diets (diets below 500 calories) cause a loss of
nitrogen and potassium in the body, a loss which is believed to trigger a
mechanism in the body that causes us to hold on to our fat stores and to turn to
muscle protein for energy instead.
Jane Fonda, Jane Fonda's New Workout and Weight Loss Program
Additional Exercises
8. Verify whether the presentation of the definition of "claim" in Chapter 1 follows the
steps in making a good definition.
9. Sometimes we can make an apparently subjective claim objective by making a
definition. For example, "Harry is intelligent" can be objective if we define "intelligent"
to mean "has a B average or better in university courses." Give definitions that make
the following subjective claims objective.
a. It's hot outside.
b. Eating a lot of fat every day is unhealthy.
10. Find the definition of "Hispanic" from the U.S. Census Bureau. Compare it to the
definition of "Latino."
Summary In Chapter 1 we learned that arguments are attempts to convince using claims.
So we need to be able to distinguish different kinds of claims and be aware of
sentences that look like claims but aren't.
A sentence is vague if it's unclear what the speaker intended. We can learn to
recognize when a sentence is too vague to use in our reasoning. It's a bad argument,
though, to say that just because we can't draw a precise line, there's never any clear
meaning to a word. An ambiguous sentence is vague in a bad way, for it has two or
more clear interpretations. Ambiguous sentences should never be taken as claims.
Often the problem with a vague sentence is to determine what standards are
being assumed. They could be objective—independent of what anyone or anything
thinks/believes/feels; or they could be subjective; or there might not be any standard
at all. A sentence that's too vague to be an objective claim might be all right as a
subjective claim.
Considering whether a claim is objective or subjective can save us a lot of
heartache: We won't debate someone else's feelings. Confusing subjective and
objective claims leads to bad arguments.
Often we make prescriptive claims about what should be, not just what is.
Moral claims usually are meant as prescriptive and objective, though often people
retreat to saying they're subjective when they can't defend their views. Debates
about prescriptive claims should be about the standard they invoke or whether they
follow from that standard.
We need to eliminate ambigu
ity and excessive vagueness if we are to reason
together. We can do so by rewriting our arguments or speaking more precisely.
32 CHAPTER 2 What Are We Arguing About?
Or we can define the words that are causing the problem. A definition isn't a claim,
though; it's something added to an argument to clarify. Definitions shouldn't
prejudge the issue by being self-serving.
Key Words vague sentence subjectivist fallacy
drawing the line fallacy confusing objective with subjective
ambiguous sentence prescriptive claim
objective claim descriptive claim
subjective claim value judgment
intersubjective claim definition
personal standard persuasive (self-serving) definition
impersonal standard good definition
Exercises for Chapter 2
Here are a few of Tom's attempts to do exercises that use the ideas we've learned in this
chapter, along with Dr. E's comments. Tom's supposed to underline the terms that apply.
Dogs bark.
claim subjective ambiguous or too vague
not claim objective definition persuasive definition
Yes, it's a claim. "But if it's a claim, then it has to be either objective or subjective.
Cats are nasty.
claim subjective ambiguous or too vague
not claim objective definition persuasive definition
No-if it's ambiguous or too vague, then it's not a claim. This is an example of a subjective
claim.
Rabbits are the principal source of protein for dogs in the wild.
claim subjective ambiguous or too vague
not claim objective definition persuasive definition
No-if it's a definition, it's not a claim. And this is not a definition— what word is it
defining? Certainty not "rabbit."
Dogs are canines that bring warmth and love to a family.
claim subjective ambiguous or too vague
not claim objective definition persuasive definition
No. If it's a persuasive definition, then it is a claim— just masquerading as a definition.
1. State which of the following can together apply to a single sentence and give an
example:
claim subjective ambiguous or too vague
not claim objective definition persuasive definition
EXERCISES for Chapter 2 33
For each of the following, indicate which of the terms in Exercise 1 apply. If you think your
instructor might disagree, provide an explanation.
2. Donkeys can breed with other equines.
3. The manifest content of a dream is what a dream appears to be about to the dreamer.
4. A grade of A in this course means you know how to parrot what the professor said.
5. Public Health Is the Greatest Good for the Most Numbers
(on the logo of the New Mexico Department of Health)
6. Too much TV is bad for children.
7. China has the largest land mass of any single country.
8. I've already heard the new album by Britney Spears.
9. There are five countries in North America.
10. We handled 1.6 million claims last year—many within 48 hours! (Geico advertisement)
11. I'm going to throw up.
12. "We [the United States] are the leader of the free world."
Senator J. Rockefeller on "Day to Day," National Public Radio, July 23, 2004
13. Remember loved ones lost through Christmas concert.
(Headline, The Spectrum, December 4, 1998)
Further Study Much of philosophy is concerned with attempts to give criteria that
will turn apparently subjective claims into objective claims. A course on ethics will
study whether claims about what's wrong or right can be made objective. A course
on aesthetics will analyze whether all claims about what is beautiful are subjective.
And a course on the philosophy of law or criminal justice will introduce the methods
the law uses to give objective criteria for determining what is right or wrong.
Some people believe that all there is to a claim being objective is that it is
believed by enough people. That is, objectivity is just intersubjectivity. Philosophy
courses deal with that debate.
Courses in nursing discuss how to deal with subjective claims by patients and
vague instructions by doctors.
Some courses in English composition or rhetoric deal with definitions,
particularly the correct forms and uses of definitions. Courses on the philosophy of
language or linguistics study the nature of definitions, ways in which definitions can
be made, and misuses of definitions. Ambiguity and vagueness are also covered in
English composition and rhetoric courses.
Writing Lesson 2
We know that before we begin deliberating we should make the issue precise enough
that someone can agree or disagree.
Make the following sentence sufficiently precise that you could debate it:
Student athletes should be given special leniency when the instructor
assigns course marks.
Your definition or explanation should be at most one page long. (At most one page,
not at least or exactly one page.)
To give you a better idea of what you're expected to do, here is the homework
on another topic from Tom and Mary Ellen, along with Dr. E's comments.
Tom Wyzyczy
Critical Thinking
Section 4
Writing Lesson 2
"All unnatural sex acts should be prohibited by law."
Before we can debate this we have to say what it means. I think that "unnatural sex
act" should mean any kind of sexual activity that most people think is unnatural.
And "prohibited by law" should mean there's a law against it.
You've got the idea, But your answer is really no improvement, You can delete the first
sentence. And you can delete "I think." We can guess that, because you wrote the
paper.
Your proposed definition of "unnatural sex act" is too vague. It's reminiscent of
the standard the U.S. Supreme Court uses to define obscenity: prevailing community
standards. In particular, what do you mean by "sexual activity"? Does staring at a
woman's breasts count? And who are "people"? The people in your church? Your
neighborhood? Your city? Your state? Your country? The world?
Of course, "prohibited by law" means there's a law against it. 'But what kind of
law? A fine? A prison sentence? A penalty depending on severity of the offense?
How do you determine the severity?
35
36 Writing Lesson 2
Mary Ellen Zzzyzzx
Critical Thinking
Section 4
Writing Lesson 2
"All unnatural sex acts should be prohibited by law."
By "unnatural sex act" I shall mean any sexual activity involving genitals,
consensual or not, except between a man and a woman who are both over sixteen
and in a way that could lead to procreation if they wanted it to and which is
unobserved by others.
By "prohibited by law" I shall mean it would be a misdemeanor comparable to
getting a traffic ticket.
You did just fine, Really, the burden to make it precise would be on the person
suggesting that the sentence he taken as a claim. Most attempts aregoing to seem like
a persuasive definition. But at least you now have a claim you could debate. If the
other person thinks it's the wrong definition, that would be agood place to begin your
discussions.
3 What Is a
Good Argument?
A. Good Reason to Believe 37
B. The Conclusion Follows From the Premises 38
C. The Tests for an Argument to Be Good 42
• Exercises for Sections A-C 46
D. Strong vs. Valid Arguments 48
Summary 48
• Exercises for Chapter 3 49
A. Good Reason to Believe
What makes an argument good? We don't want to say a good argument is one that
actually convinces someone. Who's being convinced? Me? You? Maybe you're in
a bad mood and nothing would convince you, or your friend is drunk and you can't
convince him. Does that mean the argument is bad?
No, a good argument is one in which the premises give good reason to believe
the conclusion is true. But what is "good reason"?
Certainly if we don't have good reason to believe the premises, the premises
won't give us good reason to believe the conclusion. After all, from a false premise
we can prove anything at all. For example:
False premise, false conclusion
All books are written by women.
So the author of this book is a woman.
False premise, true conclusion
All books are written by women.
So the author of this book is a human being.
An argument is no better than its least plausible premise.
37
38
CHAPTER 3 What Is a Good Argument?
Plausible claims A claim is plausible if we have good reason to believe
it is true. It is less plausible the less reason we have to believe it is true.
It is implausible or dubious if we have no reason to believe it is true.
In Chapter 5 we'll look at what counts as good reason to accept a premise.
But plausibility isn't enough. Suppose you overhear:
—God exists.
—How do you know?
—Because the Bible says so.
—But why do you think that's true?
—Because God wrote the Bible.
The first person is arguing in a circle. He's given a bad argument.
Or consider:
Dogs have souls.
So you should treat dogs humanely.
Even if you agree that the premise is plausible, it's less plausible than the conclusion.
Begging the question An argument begs the question if one of its premises
is no more plausible than the conclusion.
Any argument that begs the question is bad.
Richard L Epstein Page 6