How to map arguments from a text - Revision history

Stevenwarden at 23:15, 9 September 2024

2024-09-09T23:15:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, 9 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=Finding the arguments=		=Finding the arguments=

	When trying to analyze the arguments in a given text the first step is to identify which passages contain arguments. You need to single out those stretches of text in which one or more propositions are cited as a reason to believe another. There are many ways in English to indicate that one proposition is being offered in support of another. For example, we might say “I should respect her, because she’s my mother,” or “She’s my mother, so I should respect her,” “I should respect her, for she’s my mother, or “She’s my mother; therefore, I should respect her.” In all of these cases “She’s my mother” is being offered as a premise in support of the conclusion “I should respect her.”		When trying to analyze the arguments in a given text the first step is to identify which passages contain arguments. You need to single out those stretches of text in which one or more propositions are cited as a reason to believe another. There are many ways in English to indicate that one proposition is being offered in support of another. For example, we might say “I should respect her, because she’s my mother,” or “She’s my mother, so I should respect her,” “I should respect her, for she’s my mother, or “She’s my mother; therefore, I should respect her.” In all of these cases, “She’s my mother” is being offered as a premise in support of the conclusion “I should respect her.”

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
Line 47:		Line 47:
	To ensure that you have found all of the premises and the conclusion, read through the passage carefully, focusing separately on each proposition—each claim that could be expressed as a separate sentence (however it is actually formulated in the passage as written). Then ask yourself why the proposition is there. Is it intended as a part of the argument or as some sort of aside? If it is part of the argument, then what role is it playing: is it meant to be supporting some conclusion, or to be supported by some other proposition?		To ensure that you have found all of the premises and the conclusion, read through the passage carefully, focusing separately on each proposition—each claim that could be expressed as a separate sentence (however it is actually formulated in the passage as written). Then ask yourself why the proposition is there. Is it intended as a part of the argument or as some sort of aside? If it is part of the argument, then what role is it playing: is it meant to be supporting some conclusion, or to be supported by some other proposition?

	If you are having trouble figuring out whether one proposition is intended to support another or to be supported by it, it can help to ask yourself which proposition is more obviously true. In arguments, we try to establish propositions that we are less sure of by inferring them from ones that we are ~~surer~~ of.		If you are having trouble figuring out whether one proposition is intended to support another or to be supported by it, it can help to ask yourself which proposition is more obviously true. In arguments, we try to establish propositions that we are less sure of by inferring them from ones that we are more sure of.

	=Implicit Premises=		=Implicit Premises=

	You may have noticed that there’s something unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above, expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so ~~longwindedly~~. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one of the premises. People often do this when they think it is obvious what premise would be needed to complete their argument and when they think the person they’re speaking with will agree to that premise. If one maps these arguments as written, here’s what one would get:		You may have noticed that there’s something unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above, expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so long-windedly. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one of the premises. People often do this when they think it is obvious what premise would be needed to complete their argument and when they think the person they’re speaking with will agree to that premise. If one maps these arguments as written, here’s what one would get:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\| Map 9a & 9b:		\| Map 9a & 9b:
Line 68:		Line 68:
	\|}		\|}

	Some of ways this argument might be expressed:		Some ways this argument might be expressed:

	*I should respect her, because she’s my mother.		*I should respect her, because she’s my mother.
Line 92:		Line 92:
	Thus, the process of finding implicit premises is closely related to the process of assessing the inference. Once you have identified the stated premises and the conclusion, you may notice that the conclusion ''does not follow'' from the premises. At this point, there are two possibilities: either the inference is a non-sequitur; or there is an implicit premise, which does make the conclusion follow from the premises. You need to use your judgment as to which is the case. Is it more likely that the author of the argument made a non-sequitur or that he left one of his premises unstated? People rarely make arguments that include obvious non-sequiturs, so in such cases, it is likely that there is an implicit premise that the author intended you to assume. There are some subtle situations where it is difficult to determine whether an argument is bad or whether there is some implicit premise, and there are cases where it is hard to tell which of several different premises might be implicit. But more often than not, it is very clear when someone is relying on an implicit premise and what that premise is.		Thus, the process of finding implicit premises is closely related to the process of assessing the inference. Once you have identified the stated premises and the conclusion, you may notice that the conclusion ''does not follow'' from the premises. At this point, there are two possibilities: either the inference is a non-sequitur; or there is an implicit premise, which does make the conclusion follow from the premises. You need to use your judgment as to which is the case. Is it more likely that the author of the argument made a non-sequitur or that he left one of his premises unstated? People rarely make arguments that include obvious non-sequiturs, so in such cases, it is likely that there is an implicit premise that the author intended you to assume. There are some subtle situations where it is difficult to determine whether an argument is bad or whether there is some implicit premise, and there are cases where it is hard to tell which of several different premises might be implicit. But more often than not, it is very clear when someone is relying on an implicit premise and what that premise is.

	=Multi-Step ~~arguments~~ and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion=		=Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion=

	There are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:		There are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:

Mebenstein at 15:38, 24 March 2023

2023-03-24T15:38:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 24 March 2023
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1416~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1027/export?token=~~6de82df8-bd54-4539-a430-095892c732bf~~&target=active&dpi=90&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/6de82df8-bd54-4539-a430-095892c732bf}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 34:		Line 34:
	\| Map 9:		\| Map 9:
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1028/export?token=~~232b3081-b6e3-4121-aa65-8683af6f2c29~~&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/232b3081-b6e3-4121-aa65-8683af6f2c29}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 55:		Line 55:
	\| Map 9a & 9b:		\| Map 9a & 9b:
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1076/export?token=~~618ee3a2-51fb-48d5-81ce-6970d0d78669~~&target=current_publication&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/618ee3a2-51fb-48d5-81ce-6970d0d78669}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 65:		Line 65:
	\| Map 8:		\| Map 8:
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1027/export?token=~~6de82df8-bd54-4539-a430-095892c732bf~~&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/6de82df8-bd54-4539-a430-095892c732bf}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 81:		Line 81:
	\| Map 8a:		\| Map 8a:
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1077/export?token=~~0d9c149d-904f-4b36-82f7-878f29014558~~&target=current_publication&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/0d9c149d-904f-4b36-82f7-878f29014558}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 104:		Line 104:
	\| Map 10:		\| Map 10:
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1029/export?token=~~f240eea9-3762-49b0-8777-70fd34b23432~~&target=active&dpi=90&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/f240eea9-3762-49b0-8777-70fd34b23432}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 158:		Line 158:
	\| Map 13 of (ii):		\| Map 13 of (ii):
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1032/export?token=~~d96a4b24-caf0-4b2f-8ea4-760a3b86d4d2~~&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/d96a4b24-caf0-4b2f-8ea4-760a3b86d4d2}}
	\|}		\|}

Line 176:		Line 176:
	\| Map 14 (click for expanded view):		\| Map 14 (click for expanded view):
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1432?token=e3080636-9cba-48c3-a1a4-109c97183cb4~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1033/export?token=~~5e2d16e9-d925-4496-8ff1-e900731c9b7c~~&target=current_publication&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]~~		\|{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/5e2d16e9-d925-4496-8ff1-e900731c9b7c}}
	\|}		\|}

Mebenstein at 18:02, 5 September 2022

2022-09-05T18:02:33Z

Show changes

GSalmieri: /* Multi-Step arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion */

2022-08-29T04:18:09Z

Multi-Step arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 29 August 2022
Line 94:		Line 94:
	=Multi-Step arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion=		=Multi-Step arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion=

	~~In §1.3 above we saw that there~~ are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:		There are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

GSalmieri: /* Implicit Premises */

2022-08-29T04:14:28Z

Implicit Premises

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 29 August 2022
Line 51:		Line 51:
	=Implicit Premises=		=Implicit Premises=

	You may have noticed that there’s something ~~a bit~~ unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so longwindedly. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one of the premises. People often do this when they think it is obvious what premise would be needed to complete their argument and when they think the person they’re speaking with will agree to that premise. If one maps these arguments as written, here’s what one would get:		You may have noticed that there’s something unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so longwindedly. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one of the premises. People often do this when they think it is obvious what premise would be needed to complete their argument and when they think the person they’re speaking with will agree to that premise. If one maps these arguments as written, here’s what one would get:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\| Map 9a & 9b:		\| Map 9a & 9b:
Line 58:		Line 58:
	\|}		\|}

	Inferences B and C are non-sequiturs, whereas Inference A (in Map 9~~, in §2.2~~) is a deduction. Moreover, it is obvious what premise you could need to add to Argument B (or Argument C) to make a very strong ~~argument~~ (namely, ~~Argument~~ A).		Inferences B and C are non-sequiturs, whereas Inference A (in Map 9) is a deduction. Moreover, it is obvious what premise you could need to add to Argument B (or Argument C) to make a very strong inference (namely, Inference A).

	We encountered another example of this phenomenon in map 8, above. Here is that map again:		We encountered another example of this phenomenon in map 8, above. Here is that map again:

GSalmieri at 04:07, 29 August 2022

2022-08-29T04:07:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 29 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	To analyze something is to break it down into its constituent parts, and to analyze an argument is to break it down into its premises and conclusion. I will focus on analyzing arguments presented by other people in written form. Of course, one hears arguments in conversations all the time, and the process by which one analyses them is essentially the same as with written arguments, but it is more difficult because one does not have a “fixed target” which one can take the time to study at one’s own pace. One also can analyze one’s own arguments as well as those offered by other people~~, and, indeed we will have occasion to do this over the course of the term~~, but in doing so it is important to achieve a certain critical distance from the argument, and this is best achieved by writing it out, and then treating it as though it were written by someone else.		To analyze something is to break it down into its constituent parts, and to analyze an argument is to break it down into its premises and conclusion. I will focus on analyzing arguments presented by other people in written form. Of course, one hears arguments in conversations all the time, and the process by which one analyses them is essentially the same as with written arguments, but it is more difficult because one does not have a “fixed target” which one can take the time to study at one’s own pace. One also can analyze one’s own arguments as well as those offered by other people, but in doing so it is important to achieve a certain critical distance from the argument, and this is best achieved by writing it out and then treating it as though it were written by someone else.

	=Finding the arguments=		=Finding the arguments=

GSalmieri: /* Example of a Complex Map */

2022-08-25T08:31:59Z

Example of a Complex Map

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 25 August 2022
Line 167:		Line 167:
	=Example of a Complex Map=		=Example of a Complex Map=

	An example of a more complex map than we’ve looked at so far. Here’s a brief passage, followed by a map of all the arguments it contains.		As an example of a more complex map than we’ve looked at so far. Here’s a brief passage, followed by a map of all the arguments it contains.

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>

GSalmieri: /* Finding the arguments */

2022-08-25T08:30:00Z

Finding the arguments

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 25 August 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Premises and conclusions can be indicated in other ways. For example, in some contexts, one can indicate that a proposition is a conclusion by saying that it “must” or “has to be” the case, but like particles, these words have other uses as well. Or someone could be very explicit and say, “I conclude that I have to respect her, on the basis of the premise that she’s my mother.” Or, swinging from one extreme to the other, he might express the same argument by saying simply: “She’s my mother. I should respect her,” or “I should respect her. She’s my mother.” And, in most contexts, if someone said this, you would recognize that he probably meant one proposition to support the other, and you would be able to tell which was which, because you understand enough about the relations between the propositions to figure out what the author probably intends. Again, sometimes premises or conclusions can be expressed in the form of rhetorical questions: “Shouldn’t I respect her? After all, isn’t she my mother?” There is a wide variety of ways in which premises and conclusions can be expressed, and in which we are able to recognize that this is what is being done.		Premises and conclusions can be indicated in other ways. For example, in some contexts, one can indicate that a proposition is a conclusion by saying that it “must” or “has to be” the case, but like particles, these words have other uses as well. Or someone could be very explicit and say, “I conclude that I have to respect her, on the basis of the premise that she’s my mother.” Or, swinging from one extreme to the other, he might express the same argument by saying simply: “She’s my mother. I should respect her,” or “I should respect her. She’s my mother.” And, in most contexts, if someone said this, you would recognize that he probably meant one proposition to support the other, and you would be able to tell which was which, because you understand enough about the relations between the propositions to figure out what the author probably intends. Again, sometimes premises or conclusions can be expressed in the form of rhetorical questions: “Shouldn’t I respect her? After all, isn’t she my mother?” There is a wide variety of ways in which premises and conclusions can be expressed, and in which we are able to recognize that this is what is being done.

	[[file:ArgumentParticles.png~~\|thumb\|left\|500px~~]]		[[file:ArgumentParticles.png]]

	=Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises=		=Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises=

GSalmieri: /* Finding the arguments */

2022-08-25T08:29:31Z

Finding the arguments

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:29, 25 August 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:


	Words like “so,” “therefore,” “thus,” “hence,” and “consequently” are often used to introduce conclusions; and words like “because,” “for,” and “since” often introduce premises. “Surely,” “certainly,” “no doubt,” and other words that signal confidence in what one’s about to say are also often used to introduce premises. Words of the sorts we’ve been discussing are sometimes called '''particles'''. Looking out for particles can help you to identify arguments and adding particles to your own writing is a good way to convey the structure of your own arguments to readers. However, all of these particles also have other uses in English, and people sometimes argue without using particles at all.		Words like “so,” “therefore,” “thus,” “hence,” and “consequently” are often used to introduce conclusions; and words like “because,” “for,” and “since” often introduce premises. “Surely,” “certainly,” “no doubt,” and other words that signal confidence in what one’s about to say are also often used to introduce premises. Words of the sorts we’ve been discussing are sometimes called '''[[inferential particles]]'''. Looking out for these particles can help you to identify arguments and adding particles to your own writing is a good way to convey the structure of your own arguments to readers. However, all of these particles also have other uses in English, and people sometimes argue without using particles at all.

	Premises and conclusions can be indicated in other ways. For example, in some contexts, one can indicate that a proposition is a conclusion by saying that it “must” or “has to be” the case, but like particles, these words have other uses as well. Or someone could be very explicit and say, “I conclude that I have to respect her, on the basis of the premise that she’s my mother.” Or, swinging from one extreme to the other, he might express the same argument by saying simply: “She’s my mother. I should respect her,” or “I should respect her. She’s my mother.” And, in most contexts, if someone said this, you would recognize that he probably meant one proposition to support the other, and you would be able to tell which was which, because you understand enough about the relations between the propositions to figure out what the author probably intends. Again, sometimes premises or conclusions can be expressed in the form of rhetorical questions: “Shouldn’t I respect her? After all, isn’t she my mother?” There is a wide variety of ways in which premises and conclusions can be expressed, and in which we are able to recognize that this is what is being done.		Premises and conclusions can be indicated in other ways. For example, in some contexts, one can indicate that a proposition is a conclusion by saying that it “must” or “has to be” the case, but like particles, these words have other uses as well. Or someone could be very explicit and say, “I conclude that I have to respect her, on the basis of the premise that she’s my mother.” Or, swinging from one extreme to the other, he might express the same argument by saying simply: “She’s my mother. I should respect her,” or “I should respect her. She’s my mother.” And, in most contexts, if someone said this, you would recognize that he probably meant one proposition to support the other, and you would be able to tell which was which, because you understand enough about the relations between the propositions to figure out what the author probably intends. Again, sometimes premises or conclusions can be expressed in the form of rhetorical questions: “Shouldn’t I respect her? After all, isn’t she my mother?” There is a wide variety of ways in which premises and conclusions can be expressed, and in which we are able to recognize that this is what is being done.

GSalmieri: /* Example of a Complex Map */

2022-08-23T09:24:44Z

Example of a Complex Map

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 23 August 2022
Line 176:		Line 176:
	\| Map 14 (click for expanded view):		\| Map 14 (click for expanded view):
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/~~1478~~?token=~~41804760~~-~~1661~~-~~42e4~~-~~9c4c~~-~~c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1033/export?token=5e2d16e9-d925-4496-8ff1-e900731c9b7c&target=~~active~~&dpi=40&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1432?token=e3080636-9cba-48c3-a1a4-109c97183cb4 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1033/export?token=5e2d16e9-d925-4496-8ff1-e900731c9b7c&target=current_publication&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}