Logic and Argumentation: Identification and Analysis Procedures

Identification and Analysis of Arguments

The fundamental objective of this study material is to equip students with the skills necessary to identify and analyze arguments effectively. This process is comprehensive and involves learning to distinguish between the various components of an argument, specifically differentiating between conclusion indicators and premise indicators. By the end of this study, students should be capable of dissecting any given logical passage to understand its internal support structure.

Methodologies for Identifying Arguments

There are two primary ways through which arguments may be identified in written or spoken discourse. The first method relies on the presence of linguistic indicators—specific keywords that signal the logical function of the surrounding text. The second method uses a conceptual inquiry approach by asking two critical questions of the text. Both methods aim to facilitate the accurate identification of claims and the evidence provided for them.

Logical Indicators: Conclusion Markers

Indicators are specific linguistic cues whose presence enables an observer to recognize that they are dealing with an argument rather than a simple narrative or explanation. The first type of indicator is the conclusion indicator. As referenced on page 15 of the text "Essentials of Logic," the presence of a conclusion indicator should allow the reader to determine which specific part of the statement constitutes the argument's conclusion.

The list of conclusion indicators includes the following specific words and phrases: therefore, wherefore, thus, consequently, we may infer, accordingly, we may conclude, so, hence, it follows that, and it implies that. When any of these words appear, the statement that follows is usually the central claim that the author is trying to prove.

Logical Indicators: Premise Markers

Premise indicators function similarly to conclusion indicators but point toward the supporting statements rather than the main claim. As outlined on page 16 of "Essentials of Logic," these indicators enable the reader to determine the premise or premises of the argument.

The recognized premise indicators include words and phrases such as: since, because, for, as, follows from, as shown by, for the reason that, inasmuch as, as indicated by, and in view of the fact that. These words signal that the accompanying information provides the logic or evidence upon which the conclusion rests.

The Inquiry Method: Identifying Arguments through Questions

In instances where explicit indicators are absent, or to clarify the structure of a complex argument, one should ask two important questions:

1. What position are we asked to accept?
2. Why are we asked to accept this position?

The part of the text that provides the answer to the "what" question is definitively the conclusion. The part of the text that provides the answer to the "why" question is definitively the premise. This methodology ensures that the logical core of a statement is identified based on functional context rather than just vocabulary.

Case Studies in Argument Identification

In the first example, regarding the health profession, the text states: "All physicians are university graduates, so, all members of the Nigerian Medical Association must be University graduates, since all members of the Nigerian Medical Association are physicians." In this breakdown, we find two premises and one conclusion: Premise 1: All physicians are university graduates. Premise 2: All members of the Nigerian Medical Association are physicians. Conclusion: All members of the Nigerian Medical Association must be University graduates.

In the second example, concerning the origins of life: "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origin should be considered as theory, not fact." This argument is identified as: Premise 1: No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Conclusion: Any statement about life’s origin should be considered as theory, not fact.

In the third example, explaining a name: "The turkey venture is called that name because its red featherless head resembles the head of a wild turkey." The analysis reveals: Premise 1: Its red featherless head resembles the head of a wild turkey. Conclusion: The turkey venture is called that name.

In the fourth example, regarding public health policy: "The Food and Drug Management should stop all cigarette sales immediately. We know one thing, at least, that cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death." Using the question method, the "WHAT" (the conclusion/therefore) is: "The Food and Drug Management should stop all cigarette sales immediately." The "WHY" (the premise/because) is: "We know one thing, at least, that cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death."

Procedural Steps for Argument Analysis

In the process of analyzing arguments, there is a formal step-by-step procedure to follow to ensure clarity. First, the analyzer must separate the conclusion and the premise(s). Secondly, when documenting the analysis, the premises must be written out first. Only after the premises have been established should the conclusion be written. This hierarchy preserves the logical flow from evidence to result.

Advanced Analytical Case Studies

A detailed analysis of environmental health arguments can be seen in the following statement: "Since the elderly have always had a higher cancer rate, and since we now have more older citizens, the absolute increase in the number of cancer death is not an indication of any kind of ‘environmental breakdown’." The formal analysis is structured as follows: Premise 1: The elderly have always had a higher cancer rate. Premise 2: We now have more older citizens. Conclusion: The absolute increase in the number of cancer death is not an indication of any kind of ‘environmental breakdown’.

A further analysis involves the classification of certain practitioners: "Since witch-doctors… are not supposed to serve malevolent ends and since they often use medicine or magic to help drive off, or destroy witches, they are best classified as good magicians or wizards." The formal result is: Premise 1: Witch-doctors… are not supposed to serve malevolent ends. Premise 2: They often use medicine or magic to help drive off, or destroy witches. Conclusion: They are best classified as good magicians or wizards."