Chapter 5 Psyc

Chapter 5: Strategies for Assessing Arguments

Introduction to Argument Assessment

  • Every argument makes a double claim:

    • (a) The premises are true.

    • (b) The premises support the conclusion.

  • Assessing an argument is fundamentally asking if these claims are valid.

  • An argument makes a promise: its quality is judged by whether it fulfills this promise.

  • Good Argument: Successfully meets its claims.

  • Bad Argument: Fails to meet its claims.

Two Approaches to Assessing Arguments

  • FALLACIES APPROACH:

    • Identify specific fallacies (mistakes) within the argument.

    • Conclusion: If no fallacies are found, the argument is good; if fallacies are present, the argument is bad.

    • Time-honored method highlighting common errors.

  • CRITERIAL APPROACH:

    • Establishes criteria (standards) that a good argument must satisfy.

    • Qualifies arguments based on criteria fulfillment.

    • Advantages over fallacies approach:

    • Provides a positive framework for evaluation by focusing on what an argument should possess rather than pitfalls to avoid.

    • Addresses common mistakes via the lens of criteria.

5.1 The Fallacies Approach

  • Definition of a Fallacy: Any error or weakness that diminishes the soundness of an argument, while misleadingly appearing sound.

  • Example Fallacy: Appeal to pity:

    • Example: "Jane is a widow with three children. Therefore, she should be promoted."

    • Critique: Her personal situation does not ascertain her qualifications for the job.

  • Historical Context: Aristotle defines 13 types of fallacies, contemporary logicians identify around 150, indicating a proliferation of fallacious types.

Problems with the Fallacies Approach

  • Limitless Weaknesses: No finite list of possible weaknesses in arguments; only frequently occurring errors can be cataloged.

  • Assessment Complexity: Difficulty determining specific fallacies when evident weaknesses exist.

  • Negative Nature: Focuses solely on avoidance rather than the development of good arguments.

5.2 The Criterial Approach

  • The criterial approach uplifts positive evaluation by beginning with established criteria.

  • Etymology:

    • Criterion/Criteria: Derived from the Greek noun kriterion meaning a means for judging or assessing.

    • Roots in the Greek verb kritikein, meaning to judge or assess, linking to modern critical thinking concepts.

  • Critical Thinking: Requires awareness of qualities that constitute good arguments, utilizing standards as bases for assessment.

Concept of Criteria

  • Criteria function as measuring sticks for assessing argument lengths in reasoning.

  • *Refined Concept of Sound Argument:

    • Previously: Logically strong argument = premises support conclusion.

    • Sound argument = logically strong with true premises.

  • Three Key Criteria for a Sound Argument:

    1. Acceptability of Premises:

    • Premises must be acceptable; cannot solely rely on provability.

    • Example: Cigarette packages warn of health hazards; acceptance justified by societal context rather than proof.

    1. Relevance of Premises:

    • Premises must offer relevant information to support the conclusion.

    1. Adequacy of Premises:

    • Premises must provide sufficient support for the conclusion; adequacy is often a matter of degree.

Practical Examples and Explanations

  • Acceptability Example: Health warnings on cigarette packages are generally accepted not just proven.

  • Relevance Example: Arguments may include true premises that do not support the conclusion.

  • Adequacy Example: A premise may be true and relevant but not sufficiently supporting the conclusion (e.g., predicting election outcomes based on minimal surveys).

5.3 Seven Rules for Assessing Arguments

5.3.1 Rule 1: Identify the Main Conclusion

  • Identify the main point of the passage as the conclusion:

    • Methods:

    • Ask what the author aims to convey.

    • Look for inference indicators (e.g., therefore, hence).

    • Contextual clues can help clarify the argument.

    • Apply the principle of charity to interpret ambiguities.

5.3.2 Rule 2: Identify the Premises

  • Identify premises supporting the conclusion, amid other material potentially present.

  • Inquire about the author's reasoning supporting the conclusion.

5.3.3 Rule 3: Identify the Structure of the Argument

  • After identifying the conclusion and premises, outline the argument's structure, using tools like tree diagrams if necessary.

5.3.4 Rule 4: Check the Acceptability of the Premises

  • Critically assess the premises; note any arguments meant to be counterfactual.

  • Acknowledge that a false premise doesn't always invalidate a conclusion if other premises are true.

5.3.5 Rule 5: Check the Relevance of the Premises

  • Consider the premises contextually; some may appear irrelevant but have contextual ties to support relevance.

5.3.6 Rule 6: Check the Adequacy of the Premises

  • Identify whether premises furnish adequate support for the conclusion, considering the claimed degree of support.

5.3.7 Rule 7: Look for Counter-Arguments

  • Seek any counter-arguments supporting a conclusion inconsistent with the argument assessed.

  • Recognize the necessity of sound reasoning, as two contradictory sound arguments cannot coexist without a deficiency in one.