Richard L Epstein
Page 22
"A few students dislike Dr. E" is true? Or "A lot of students will vote"?
There are two vague generalities, though, that we can use in strong arguments:
Almost all parakeets are under 2 feet tall.
So the parakeets at Boulevard Mall are under 2 feet tall.
Very few dogs don't bark.
Spot is a dog.
So Spot barks.
The premises give us good reason to believe the conclusion of each, even though the
conclusion doesn't follow with no exceptions. The following are the "almost all"
versions of the forms for "all":
172 CHAPTER 8 General Claims
But reasoning in a chain with "almost all" is usually weak. For example:
Almost all dogs like peanut butter. Almost all things that like peanut
butter don't bark. So almost all dogs don't bark.
The premises are true and the conclusion false.
An argument of this form might be strong if you could specify exactly which S
aren't P, and which P aren't Q. But that's just to say you need further premises to
make it strong.
Exercises for Section C
1. Give two other ways to say "Almost all teenagers listen to rock music."
2. Give two other ways to say "Only a few adults listen to rock music."
Which of the argument forms in Exercises 3-6 are strong? Justify your answer.
3. Very few S are P. 5. Most S are P.
a is S. Most P are Q.
So a is not P. So most S are Q.
4. Very few S are P. 6. Almost all S are P.
a is P. Every P is Q.
So a is not S. So almost all S are Q.
Which of the following arguments are strong? Check by doing one of the following:
• Give a not unlikely possible way in which the premises are true and the conclusion
false to show the argument is weak.
• Point out that the argument is in one of the forms we have studied.
• Explain in your own words why it's strong or weak.
7. Very few college students use heroin. Zoe is a college student. So Zoe doesn't
use heroin.
8. Almost no students read The New York Review of Books. Martha reads The New York
Review of Books. So Martha is not a student.
9. Only a very few dogs like cats. Almost no cats like dogs. So virtually no dogs and cats
like each other.
EXERCISES for Section C 173
10. No student who cheats is honest. Almost all dishonest people are found out.
So almost all students who cheat are found out.
11. Almost all people who are vegetarians like pizza. Almost all vegetarians will not eat
eggs. So all but a few people who like pizza will not eat eggs.
12. Most newspaper columnists have a college degree. Almost everyone who has a college
degree is not self-employed. So most newspaper columnists are not self-employed.
13. Very few paraplegics can play basketball. Belinda is a paraplegic. So Belinda can't
play basketball.
14. All but a few members of Congress have a college degree. Mr. Ensign is a member of
Congress. So Mr. Ensign has a college degree.
15. Almost every dog loves its master. Dr. E has a dog. So Dr. E is loved.
Summary General claims are how we assert something about all or part of a
collection. We studied ways to use "all," "some," "no," and "only" in arguments.
We first tried to get clear about how to understand those words, and then noted that
there are lots of equivalent ways to say them and to form their contradictories. Then
we looked at a few valid and invalid forms of arguments using those words. We also
saw that we could sometimes use diagrams to decide if an argument is valid.
Other precise general claims that lie between "one" and "all" normally don't
figure in valid arguments, but we saw that sometimes they can figure in strong
arguments.
Then we looked at vague generalities. Most don't figure in good arguments.
Most don't even belong in claims. But "almost all" and "a few" can be used in
strong arguments. We looked at some strong and weak argument forms using them.
Key Words all reasoning in a chain with "some"
some direct way of reasoning with "no"
no arguing backwards with "no"
only precise generalities
contradictory vague generalities
direct way of reasoning direct way of reasoning with
with "all" "almost all"
arguing backwards with "all" arguing backwards with "almost all"
reasoning in a chain with "all" reasoning in a chain with "almost all"
Further Study My book Predicate Logic, also published by Wadsworth, is an
introduction to the role of general claims in arguments. An introductory course
on formal logic will cover that, too.
Writing Lesson 8
Write an argument either for or against the following:
No one should be allowed to ride in the back of a pickup truck.
Check whether your instructor has chosen a different topic for this assignment.
As for Writing Lessons 6 and 7, you should hand in two pages:
First page: A list of premises and the conclusion.
Second page: The argument written as an essay with indicator words.
We should be able to see at a glance from the list of premises whether your argument
is good. The essay form should read just as clearly, if you use indicator words well.
Remember, there should be no claims in the essay form that aren't listed as premises.
The issue is simple. There's nothing subtle that you're supposed to do here that
you haven't done on the previous assignments. You just need to know how to argue
for or against a general claim. And for that you must be sure you can form the
contradictory of it.
By now you should have learned a lot about writing arguments. You don't
need more examples, just practice using the new ideas presented in the chapters.
As a guide you can use the section Composing Good Arguments on p. 345, which
summarizes many of the lessons you've learned.
174
Review Chapters 6-8
In Chapters 1-5 we established the fundamentals of critical thinking. In this part we
looked at the structure of arguments.
Compound claims have their own structure. We saw that a compound claim,
though made up of other claims, has to be viewed as just one claim. We saw that
some arguments are valid and others typically weak due to their form relative to the
compound claims in them.
For example, excluding possibilities is a form of valid argument using "or"
claims. But if the "or" claim doesn't list all the possibilities, we get a bad argument,
a false dilemma.
Conditionals took more care. We saw how to form their contradictories and
considered how conditionals that are always true express necessary or sufficient
conditions.
We noted the direct and indirect ways to make valid arguments using
conditionals. Two forms are similar to valid conditional arguments but are usually
weak: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. We decided that any
argument using those shouldn't be repaired.
Reasoning in a chain with conditionals is valid, too. But if some of the
conditionals are false or enough of them are dubious, the result can be a bad
argument, a slippery slope.
Counterarguments are important to distinguish in the structure of arguments.
Counterarguments are useful in our own writing because they help us see what
assumptions we may have missed. Looking at counterarguments led us to consider
the ways we can refute an argument: directly or by reducing to the absurd. We also
saw four bad ways to attempt to refute an argument: phony refutations, slippery
slopes, ridicule, and the worst, putting words in someone's mouth.
General claims are how we assert something about all or a part of a collection,
and they lead to a lot of common mistakes in reasoning. We made sure how to
understand the words "all," "some," "no," and "only". Then we considered how to form contradictories of general claims. We looked at a few valid and weak forms
using general claims, finding that sometimes we could use diagrams to check for
validity. But with vague generalities we had less scope. They don't figure in valid
arguments, and only "almost all" and "a very few" seemed to yield strong argument forms.
175
176 REVIEW CHAPTERS 6-8
You should now be able to use the methods of Chapters 1-5 on arguments
that have more complicated structures. In the next part we'll work on spotting bad
arguments. Then you can try your hand at evaluating lots of real arguments.
Review Exercises for Chapters 6-8
1. What is an argument?
2. What are the tests for an argument to be good?
3. What is a valid argument?
4. What does it mean to say an argument is strong?
5. Is every valid argument good? Explain.
6. How do you show an argument is weak?
7. Is every valid or strong argument with true premises good? Explain.
8. What is a compound claim?
9. Give a conditional, then rewrite it three ways.
10. a. What is a contradictory of a claim?
b. Give an example of an "or" claim and its contradictory.
c. Give an example of a conditional and its contradictory.
11. Give an example of arguing by excluding possibilities. Is it valid?
12. What is a false dilemma? Give an example.
13. Give an example of the direct way of reasoning with conditionals. Is it valid?
14. Give an example of the indirect way of reasoning with conditionals. Is it valid?
15. Give an example of affirming the consequent. Is it valid?
16. Give an example of denying the antecedent. Is it valid?
17. Is every argument that uses reasoning in a chain with conditionals good? Explain.
18. a. What does it mean to say that A is a necessary condition for B?
b. Give examples of claims A and B such that:
i. A is necessary for B, but A is not sufficient for B.
ii. A is sufficient for B, but A is not necessary for B.
iii. A is both necessary and sufficient for B.
iv. A is neither necessary nor sufficient for B.
19. Why is it a good idea to include a counterargument to an argument that you are writing?
20. What are the three ways of directly refuting an argument?
21. When you use the method of reducing to the absurd to refute an argument, does it show
that one of the premises is false? Explain.
22. How does a slippery slope argument differ from reducing to the absurd?
REVIEW EXERCISES for Chapters 6-8 177
23. How does ridicule differ from reducing to the absurd?
24. Give an example of an "all" claim and a contradictory of it.
25. Give an example of a "some" claim and a contradictory of it.
26. Give an example of a "no" claim and a contradictory of it.
27. Give an example of arguing backwards with "all." Is it valid?
28. Give an "only" claim and rewrite it as an "all" claim.
29. Give an example of a strong method of reasoning with vague generalities.
30. Give an example of a weak method of reasoning with vague generalities.
31. List the valid forms of arguments we studied in Chapters 6-8.
32. List the weak forms of argument in Chapters 6-8 that we said indicated an argument is
unrepairable.
AVOIDING BAD ARGUMENTS
9 Concealed Claims
A. Where's the Argument? 181
B. Loaded Questions 182
C. What Did You Say?
1. Making it sound nasty or nice 182
2. Downplayers and up-players 183
3. Where's the proof? 184
4. Innuendos 185
D. Slanters and Good Arguments 185
Summary 186
• Exercises for Chapter 9 186
A. Where's the Argument?
Someone tries to convince us by a choice of words rather than by an argument—
the subtleties of rhetoric in place of reasoned deliberation.
We've already seen an example: persuasive definitions. Someone tries to close
off the argument by making a definition that should be the conclusion. When a
person defines "abortion" to mean "the murder of an unborn child," he or she has
made it impossible to debate whether abortion is murder and whether a fetus is a
human being. Those conclusions are built into the definition.
There are lots of ways we conceal claims through our choice of words.
Slanter A slanter is any literary device that attempts to convince by using
words that conceal a dubious claim.
Slanters are bad because they try to get us to assume a dubious claim is true
without reflecting on it. Let's look at some.
181
182 CHAPTER 9 Concealed Claims
B. Loaded Questions
"When are you going to stop drinking and driving?"
Don't answer. Respond, instead, by pointing out the concealed claim:
"What makes you think I have been drinking and driving?"
Loaded question A loaded question is a question that conceals
a dubious claim that should be argued for rather than assumed.
When are you going to start studying in this course?
Why don't you love me anymore?
Why can't you dress like a gentleman?
What Do Dogs Dream About? (the title of an actual book)
The best response to a loaded question is to point out the concealed claim and begin
discussing that.
C. What Did You Say?
1. Making it sound nasty or nice
President Reagan called the guerillas fighting against the Nicaraguan government in
the 1980s "freedom fighters." The Nicaraguan government called them "terrorists."
The labels they chose slanted the way we viewed any claim about those people.
Each label concealed a claim:
"Freedom fighter"—The guerillas are good people, fighting to liberate
their country and give their countrymen freedom.
"Terrorist"—The guerillas are bad people, inflicting violence on
civilians for their own partisan ends without popular support.
Euphemism (yoo'-fuh-mizm) A euphemism is a word or phrase that
makes something sound better than a neutral description.
Dysphemism (dis'-fuh-mizm) A dysphemism is a word or phrase that
makes something sound worse than a neutral description.
In 1985 a State Department Spokesman explained why the word "killing"
was replaced with "unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life" in its human
rights report: "We found the term 'killing' too broad."
SECTION C What Did You Say? 183
The descriptions in the personals ads are full of euphemisms, like "full-figured"
or "mature." But not every description involves a euphemism. One man described
himself as "attractive,
fun, and fit." He may have lied, but he didn't use a nice word
in place of a neutral one. Nor is every euphemism bad. We don't want to get rid of
every pleasant or unpleasant description in our writing and speech. We just want to
be aware of misuses where we're being asked to buy into dubious concealed claims.
Sometimes people use complicated sounding terms to make their work sound
more "scientific." In Nursing Process and Nursing Diagnosis the authors talk about
"diversional activity deficit"; when you read on, you realize they mean "boredom."
2. Downplayers and up-players
The President and Congress managed to ensure that only two million jobs
were lost in the economy from 2001-2004.
"Only"? That's downplaying the significance of a very disagreeable outcome.
And "managed to" is up-playing the significance of the effort.
A downplayer is a word or phrase that minimizes the significance of a claim,
while an up-player exaggerates the significance.
"Yes, I have cheated in a class although it has never been off someone else.
U. The National College Magazine, November, 1996
The extreme version of an up-player is called hyperbole (hi-purr'-buh-lee):
Zoe: I'm sorry I'm late for work. I had a terrible emergency at home.
Boss: Oh, no. I'm so sorry. What happened?
Zoe: I ran out of mousse and had to go to the store.
Chilly 58-degree days normally happen in December and January, but they
blew in early to make Sunday teeth-chattering. [Las Vegas Review-Journal
One way to downplay is with words that restrict or limit the meaning of others,
what we call qualifiers—as in my promise that if you buy this book you will
certainly pass this course.* Here's another example.
The city will install stop signs this week for a four-way stop at the corner of
St. George Boulevard, attempting to cut down accidents and prepare motorists
for a stoplight at the intersection.
"The city has recorded six accidents at the intersection in the past four
months, and there may have been more that were not reported," said city traffic
engineer Aron Baker. The Spectrum, September 23, 1996
* Purchaser must agree to study this material at least four hours per day during the term.
184 CHAPTER 9 Concealed Claims
What did he say? Were there more accidents? No. There may have been