The Power Players

What are the Power Players?

The Power Players

Certainty	Must	Always, every single time, no exceptions ever, you can’t get out of doing this no matter what
	Cannot	Never, impossible in any circumstance, no way
Possibility	Could	Possible, can, there’s a chance, maybe, might, encompasses both something unlikely and something likely, may or may not
	Not Necessarily	Doesn’t have to be the case, literally “not must”, could be an exception, not guaranteed

Power Players are what make the argument strong or weak. 

1. We must get Chinese food

2. We cannot get Chinese food

3. We could get Chinese food

4. We are not necessarily getting Chinese food

Must

Must: premises have to be sturdy (ex: we have to eat and we can’t get any food other than Chinese food). With restrictive and proving premises, we prove must. Without them, we prove other options.

Cannot

Cannot: Must be restrictive and proving (ex: we’re all allergic to Chinese food and we never get food we’re allergic to). If there is a premise that shows that there is any other reason we could get Chinese food, it would beat “cannot”.

Not Necessarily

Not Necessarily: It’s a meh premise (ex: we don’t have to get Chinese food. We might go hungry or get pasta). We would need something that proves we have to get Chinese food to destroy the claim.

Could

We need a maybe premise (ex: Chinese food is available, and we have enough money). To destroy it, you would have to find something that puts down Chinese food.

What do the Power Players Mean in Percentages?

Must: The 100% Absolutely Sure	Could: 1% - 100% Everything but 0% likely
Cannot: The 0% Never Never, Never!	Not Necessarily: 0% - 99% Everything but 100% likely

 The Negation (←→) & Equivalence (=) of Each Term

Must = Cannot Must ←→ Not Necessarily	Could = Not Necessarily Could ←→ Cannot
Cannot = Must Cannot ←→ Could	Not Necessarily = Could Not Necessarily ←→ Must

What is Content?

Grammatically replaceable and interchangeable. You can read different stimulus with different information, but its the set up and vocabulary (like most/some/not necessarily) that tell you what you need to analyze. To destroy an argument, you focus on the power players, and not the content.

What exceptions do you have with Must?

None, there are no exceptions. There has to be X.

What exceptions do you have with Cannot?

None, there are no exceptions. No way is there ever Y.

Could includes:
Could doesn’t include:

100% Must

0% Cannot

Not Necessarily includes:
Not Necessarily doesn’t include:

0% Cannot

100% Must

Replace could with…

not impossible.

It could be a solution/It’s not impossible for that to be the solution, means chance/likelihood. NOT as solid as MUST, but shows that there’s possibility.

Any language denoting possibility is…

a could statement!

Necessarily is a synonym for:

Not necessarily is a synonym for:

Must

Not Must

Not Necessarily = every single possibility except MUST.

Not necessarily is used when…

trying to smack down someone else’s argument. You are critiquing their must. You are claiming that whatever else someone says isn’t actually proven.

When does Not Necessarily tend to appear? (not always!)

During “some scientists/critics/people believe…” and the author is putting down their argument.

Argument Parts - Power Player Premises

Power Player Premises		Strength As Evidence
Certainty Premises	Must Premise	Strong evidence
	Cannot Premise	Strong evidence
Possibility Premises	Could Premise	Weak evidence
	Not Necessarily Premise	Weak Evidence

Argument Parts - Power Player Conclusions

Power Player Conclusions		Provability
Certainty Conclusions	Must Conclusion	Difficult to Prove
	Cannot Conclusion	Difficult to Prove
Possibility Conclusions	Could Conclusion	Easy to Prove
	Not Necessarily Conclusion	Easy to Prove

Rules of Thumb:

1. Look for a key word or synonym in a conclusion, and you’ll know the type of conclusion. 

2. When an author makes an argument, their job is to prove their conclusion necessarily true, 100%. 

3. In a Could Conclusion, you are to prove that something is possible 100%.

Argument Combinations

Certainty Premises	Certainty Conclusions
Possibility Premises	Certainty Conclusions
Certainty Premises	Possibility Conclusions
Possibility Premises	Possibility Conclusions

Certainty Premise - Certainty Conclusions

Premises: Has been Has led Will They are terms that mean no other way around what’s going on. While they are strong, there are still gaps. Such as misinterpretation of data, or strong words that have empty meanings (see below).  Example: There has been an increase in jail populations. So, more people are committing crimes.  Reality: Population in general has increased, so crime is still proportionate.  Example: The politician promised to enact a bill.  Reality: Promises mean nothing, and also bills may not be voted into acceptance, so promise would be a gap.

MUST: Means something is for sure happening based on the premises.  Will Shall Has Need to find the gaps in the premise logic to make sure the must conclusion comes true.  Example: A politician promised to enact a bill that enacts the death penalty every 3 years in Florida.  Gaps: The bill may not even make it past the legislative session, the politician may fail to keep promises, the bill may pass but only for every 5yrs, etc.  Reality: Have to turn it into a statement that gets rid of loopholes. → A politician promised to enact a bill that forced the death penalty to be honored every 3yrs in FL, as long as it passes through the session for every 3 years action, and she always keeps her promises.

CANNOT: Means something is for sure happening based on the premises.  Will Shall Has Must and Cannot are handled similarly. Must may mean will happen, and Cannot may mean will not happen (or even vice versa depending on wording). So the same process applies - find the gap/weakness in the premise and see how the conclusion would have to be altered to ensure 100% goal success.

Possibility Premise - Certainty Conclusions

You cannot prove a Certainty Conclusion from all Possibility Premises, except under the most irregular circumstances.  Arguments will crumble very easily.  Premise terms: Could May You conclusion takes a maybe and mistakes it for a will (this is a flaw type!) You may wind up correctly assuming: “When something is possible, something that precludes from that possibility can’t be true.” Example: School funding could have been on the decline for decades, and the schools could have fired teachers. There could be a law that brings in more money. So, teachers will be back to work soon.  Reality: We don’t know it, there’s a chance, a maybe, a possibility, but not a MUST, like we see in the conclusion.  Fix Gaps: There could be an increase to the funding, so it cannot be true that there is no chance that the funding proposition would be introduced.

MUST: Means something is for sure happening based on the premises.  Will Shall Has Need to find the gaps in the premise logic to make sure the must conclusion comes true.  Example: A politician promised to enact a bill that enacts the death penalty every 3 years in Florida.  Gaps: The bill may not even make it past the legislative session, the politician may fail to keep promises, the bill may pass but only for every 5yrs, etc.  Reality: Have to turn it into a statement that gets rid of loopholes. → A politician promised to enact a bill that forced the death penalty to be honored every 3yrs in FL, as long as it passes through the session for every 3 years action, and she always keeps her promises.

CANNOT: Means something is for sure happening based on the premises.  Will Shall Has Must and Cannot are handled similarly. Must may mean will happen, and Cannot may mean will not happen (or even vice versa depending on wording). So the same process applies - find the gap/weakness in the premise and see how the conclusion would have to be altered to ensure 100% goal success.

Certainty Premise - Possibility Conclusions

Premises: Has been Has led Will They are terms that mean no other way around what’s going on. While they are strong, there are still gaps. Such as misinterpretation of data, or strong words that have empty meanings (see below).  Example: There has been an increase in jail populations. So, more people are committing crimes.  Reality: Population in general has increased, so crime is still proportionate.  Example: The politician promised to enact a bill.  Reality: Promises mean nothing, and also bills may not be voted into acceptance, so promise would be a gap.

COULD: They’re very annoying to disprove and requires an alternate solution that is reasonable and doesn’t have a way to be defeated by something stated in the stimulus/easily assumable from the premises. The conclusion you create will then be soft, like “there’s a chance,” or “there’s the possibility”, or “there’s room for”, etc. It can’t be a MUST because it’s established that isn’t 100%, but there has to be a 1% chance.

NOT NECESSARILY: Proving the author didn’t do her job. Need to find a premise to put down - like if they use “swear” or “promise”. Those don’t mean anything. Curb stomp the author.

Possibility Premise - Possibility Conclusions

You cannot prove a Certainty Conclusion from all Possibility Premises, except under the most irregular circumstances.  Arguments will crumble very easily.  Premise terms: Could May You conclusion takes a maybe and mistakes it for a will (this is a flaw type!) You may wind up correctly assuming: “When something is possible, something that precludes from that possibility can’t be true.” Example: School funding could have been on the decline for decades, and the schools could have fired teachers. There could be a law that brings in more money. So, teachers will be back to work soon.  Reality: We don’t know it, there’s a chance, a maybe, a possibility, but not a MUST, like we see in the conclusion.  Fix Gaps: There could be an increase to the funding, so it cannot be true that there is no chance that the funding proposition would be introduced.

COULD: They’re very annoying to disprove and requires an alternate solution that is reasonable and doesn’t have a way to be defeated by something stated in the stimulus/easily assumable from the premises. The conclusion you create will then be soft, like “there’s a chance,” or “there’s the possibility”, or “there’s room for”, etc. It can’t be a MUST because it’s established that isn’t 100%, but there has to be a 1% chance. Look at it raw, and say “there’s a 1% chance” for everything that there “is”. The idea of validity implies a high level of certainty, so show validity is low at 1%.

NOT NECESSARILY: Proving the author didn’t do her job. Need to find a premise to put down - like if they use “swear” or “promise”. Those don’t mean anything. Curb stomp the author.

Reasonable

Something reasonable is compatible with common sense. It’s what loopholes and gaps in the argument need to be - reasonable.