CS 100 - Week 4 Lecture 2 - 9-13-12

Finishing up Chapter 2

Tips on finding the conclusion to an argument:
*   find the MAIN ISSUE and ask yourself:
    What position is the arguer taking on that issue?

*   Look at the beginning and at the end of the
    passage -- the conclusion is OFTEN (but NOT ALWAYS)
    found in one of those places

*   Ask yourself: What is the arguer trying to prove?
    That's usually the conclusion.

*   try putting the word THEREFORE in front of one the
    statements -- if it fits, that statement is
    probably the conclusion;

*   try the "because" trick: 
    try to find the most appropriate way to fill in the
    blanks in the following:
    The arguer believes ______ (conclusion)
        BECAUSE _______ (premise(s))

    ...the conclusion will tend to naturally come before
    the word "because"

What is NOT an argument?
------------------------

reminder:
an ARGUMENT (in our logical sense in this course)
is a group of two or more STATEMENTS
and ONE of those, the conclusion,
    is claimed or intended to be SUPPORTED by
    the others, the premises;

*   the text discussed FIVE types of NONARGUMENTATIVE
    discourse that are sometimes confused with arguments:

    *   reports
    *   unsupported assertions
    *   conditional statements
    *   illustrations
    *   explanations

*   reports - 
    *   the purpose of a report is to convey information
        about a subject

    *   aim is to narrate, to inform, to report,
        not to offer reasons why one statement should
	be accepted on the basis of other statements;

    *   note that you can have a report about an argument -
        (but it better somehow indicate that in its
        wording/text...!)

*   unsupported assertions

    *   unsupported assertions are statements about
        what a speaker or writer happens to believe
        
        but they are only arguments IF the speaker/writer
	claims that they follow from, or support, other
        statements

*   conditional statement
    *   a conditional statement is an if-then statement

    *   2 parts to a conditional statement:
        antecedent - the statement(s) following the
                     word or implied IF
        consequent - the statement(s) following the
	             word or implied THEN

    *   consider:
        If it rains, then the picnic will be cancelled.

        I'm not claiming that it WILL rain --
	I am claiming that something will result if it
	does;

    *   a conditional statement can definitely
        be PART of an argument;
	also, some conditional statements may
	involve reasoning;

        an example of just a conditional statement
	involvin reasoning:

        if Rhode Island were larger than Ohio,
	and Ohio were larger than Texas,
	then Rhode Island would be larger than Texas.

    *   and they can definitely be PART of
        arguments --

	consider this CHAIN ARGUMENT:

        If Tech score on this play, I'll eat my hat.
	If I eat my hat, I'll get severe indigestion.
	SO: If Tech scores on this play, I'll get
	    severe indigestion.

*   illustrations

    *   an illustration is intended to provide
        examples of a claim, rather than to
        prove or support a claim

    *   it CAN be hard to tell the difference
        between illustrating a claim (illustration)
	and providing sufficient evidence for a claim
	(argument) --

	may need context or other evidence to be sure;

        *   when not sure,
	    the PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY should be attempted:
	    when interpreting an unclear passage,
	    give the speaker/writer the benefit of
	    the doubt --

	    don't attribute to an arguer a weaker argument
	    when the evidence reasonably permits us
	    to attribute a stronger one,
	    
	    don't interpret a passage as a bad argument
	    when the evidence reasonably permits us
	    to interpret it as not an argument at
	    all 
	    (for example, as an illustration)

*  explanation

   *   an explanation tries to show WHY something is the
       case,
       not to PROVE THAT it is the case;

       The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

   *   expanations have two parts:
       the statement explained: the explanandum
           (The Titanic sank)

       the statement that does the explaining: the explanans
           (The Titanic hit an iceberg) <-- WHY it sank

    *   the standards for a "good" explanation
        are not necessarily the same as the standards
	for a "good argument (and vice versa)

*   4 basic tests for distinguishing an argument from 
    an explanation:
    *   common knowledge test
    *   past event test
    *   author's intent test
    *   principle of charity test (already noted above)