Argument reconstruction
What is or isn’t an argument?
• A text is an argument if it justifies a standpoint with
propositions.
• There can be irrelevant parts in an argumentative text. Thus,
not every sentence is a proposition.
• In some cases, the author/speaker intends a text as an
argument, but does not provide reasons for accepting their
standpoint.
• Sometimes a text is just not a justification.
• Such texts are definitions, explanations, illustrations, advices,
suggestions etc.
Proposition
• A proposition is usually a sentence (or part of a sentence)
that contains information about the world. It can be either true
or false, cannot be both or neither.
• Paris is the capital of France.
• 2+2=4
• Yesterday I had sushi for dinner.
• Killing one’s mother is a terrible crime.
• The truth of some propositions can be easily decided, but
some depends on our personal or cultural values.
• A proposition can be a premise as well as a conclusion.
Elements of an argument
• Conclusion: the standpoint being justified.
• The proposition for which the arguer provides reasons, evidence.
• The proposition about which the arguer tries to persuade the
opponent.
• Is there always just one conclusion? Not nocessarily. A text can have
multiple conclusion, and sometimes one of the conclusions justifies
the other.
• Premise: the proposition supporting the conclusion.
• A premise provides a reason, an evidence for accepting the arguer’s
standpoint (conclusion).
• Usually there are multiple premises supporting one conclusion.
An example
• It is clear that euthanasia is not permissible because in this
case, the doctor assists the patient in committing suicide.
Helping someone commit suicide is actually a form of murder.
Murder is not allowed in any form.
• Which sentence is the conclusion? Thus, what are being
persuaded about?
• Which sentences are the premises? Thus, what reasons does
the arguer provide? Why should we accept their standpoint?
An example
• It is clear that euthanasia is not permissible because in this
case, the doctor assists the patient in committing suicide.
Helping someone commit suicide is actually a form of murder.
Murder is not allowed in any form.
• Conclusion: Euthanasia is not permissible.
• Premises:
• In this case, the doctor assists the patient in committing suicide.
• Suicide is a form of murder.
• Murder is not allowed in any form.
Argument reconstruction
How do we reconstruct an argument?
1. Find the propositions: What are the relevant propositions?
And which sentences are irrelevant in a text?
• We need to find the conclusion first.
• After finding the conclusion, we can identify the propositions
supporting the conclusion.
2. Find the connection: What is the relation between the
conclusion and the premise(s)?
How to find the conclusion?
• Identification of the conclusion can be helped by certain
leading questions that direct our attention.
• What is the arguer’s main point?
• About what is the arguer trying to persuade the opponent or the
audience?
• What is being proven?
• What follows from what has been proposed?
How to find the conclusion?
• Identification of the conclusion can be helped by certain
formal elements.
• The formal elements include the title of the argumentative
text, as well as the so-called introduction to an essay, or the
lead to a news article, or the abstract in the case of scientific
writings.
• Identification of the conclusion can be helped by certain
content elements. These are called conclusion indicators.
Conclusion indicators
• so • I state that...
• accordingly • I deny/reject that...
• consequently • In the following, I wish to prove / show
• all in all that...
• accordingly • I make the following arguments in favor
of...
• we get that
• I argue that...
• due to the above
• My point is that...
• therefore
• We can conclude that...
• in a word
• We come to the conclusion that...
• like this
• etc.
• as such
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h7rNmSvlKvNr3zhE5jDuECkSKEQF9aAn/view?usp=sharing
Explicit and implicit conclusion
• The conclusion can be at the beginning, middle, end of the
text.
• The conclusion can be
• explicit (spoken, written) or
• implicit (silent, hidden, unspoken).
• While the former is found in the text, spoken or written, the
latter is only hinted at by the argument as something that
follows from what is said or written.
Implicit conclusion
Why is an implicit conclusion Why is an implicit conclusion
good? bad?
• The argumentative text is more • We are less critical with implicit
concise (short and brief). propositions. Why?
• Our cognitive resources are tied up in
reconstructing the implicit elements, we
can only critically examine them with a
reduced cognitive capacity.
• Thus, it can be manipulative: it tells us
conclusions with which we do not
necessarily agree, and can contribute to a
change of attitude without us being aware
of this intent to persuade.
How to find the premises?
• Identification of the premises can be helped by certain leading
questions that direct our attention.
• What propositions are meant to support the conclusion?
• What are the reasons for the conclusion?
• What proves the claim?
• Why should we accept the arguer’s opinion?
• What are the arguments in favor of the proposition?
• What data, facts, and arguments does the author list in order to
support the conclusion?
How to find the premises?
• Not every proposition is a premise (that is not a conclusion).
Thus, not every proposition is meant to support the
conclusion. These disappear in the reconstruction.
• Premises can also be explicit implicit, they must be identified
during the reconstruction.
Premise indicators
• as • due to the fact that
• considering that • given that
• assuming that • by that
• on the basis that • realizing that
• relying on that • as a result of that
• on the basis that • I accept / grant / allow / acknowledge
• because that...
• if • I present the following arguments / the
following arguments speak / for my
• seeing that position: firstly...secondly,...thirdly is
• as a result of that that...
• based on that • etc.
• accepting that
Argument diagrams
• (1) I will not go on a date with you because
(2) you smell. 2
• (1) You cannot go to this talk show because 2 3 4
(2) you are too intelligent, (3) you have too
many teeth, and (4) the show is no longer
running.
1
The connection between the premises
• Convergent: each of the premises support the conclusion
independently (on their own).
• Linked: all of the premises are needed to adequately support
the conclusion. One premise on its own does not support the
conclusion.
• Chain: the conclusion of one inference is a premise in the next
one.
The connection between the premises
Convergent Linked Chain
2 3 2 3 3
2
1
1
1
The connection between the premises
• Convergent: I think Anna is a rather good friend. She is
interested in how I am feeling and is not distracted by anything
else when we spend time together.
• Linked: I'm going to buy a smart watch because my old one is
broken, and I especially like the smart functions that I can use
to measure my activity.
• Chain: I like cycling a lot in the spring, because it feels good to
be outside, because the weather is already pleasantly warm.
Practice: convergent, linked or chain?
• Legalizing marijuana is a good idea. Due to the fact that the drug is
no longer banned, fewer young people want to try it. Furthermore,
legalization could suppress the black market.
Convergent
• The renovation of the sports hall has been completed. Thanks to
this, trainings can be held there again, and thus, the community
center, where the trainings were held until now, is freed up again.
Chain
• There is no milk for my coffee at home. In addition, all shops are
closed due to today being a public holiday. So I can't have a latte
this morning.
Linked
How to refute different arguments?
• In case of a convergent argument, all premises need to be
refuted if you want to refute the conclusion.
• Legalizing marijuana is a good idea. (1) Due to the fact that the drug
is no longer banned, fewer young people want to try it. Furthermore,
(2) legalization could suppress the black market.
• Studies show that if marijuana is banned, the number of people who
want to try it does not decrease. The number stays the same
(refutation of premise 1). Also, black markets still exist in smaller
cities where the durg is legalized (refutation of premise 2).
• Then I retract my statement. Maybe legalizing marijuana is not such a
good idea.
How to refute different arguments?
• In case of a convergent argument, all premises need to be
refuted if you want to refute the conclusion. But what if only
one of the premises are refuted? The argument still stands,
but it is weaker!
• A foreign language is important for students. On the one hand, (1)
they will be able to communicate with foreigners. On the other hand,
(2) they can get a glimpse of different cultures. Also, (3) knowing a
foreign language is essential to get a good job.
• It is not true, a plumber does not need to know foreign languages and
you can make a good living by being a plumber (refutation of premise
3).
• Ok, you are right, but foreigh languages are still important.
How to refute different arguments?
• In case of a linked argument, it is sufficient to refute only one
of the premises (does not matter which one). NOT all premises
need to be refuted.
• (1) There is no milk for my coffee at home. In addition, (2) all shops
are closed due to today being a public holiday. So I can't have a latte
this morning.
• You are wrong, the corner shop is open today, so you can go and buy
milk (refutation of premise 2).
• Great, then I’ll go and we will make a latte.
How to refute different arguments?
• In case of a chain argument, it is sufficient to refute only one
of the premises. NOT all premises need to be refuted.
• (1) The renovation of the sports hall has been completed. Thanks to
this, (2) trainings can be held there again, and thus the community
center, where the trainings were held until now, is freed up again.
• Actually, we cannot have trainings there becuase the sports hall will
be occupied by a professional team (refutation of premise 2), thus, we
will still have to use the community center.
• That is too bad!
Steps of argument reconstruction
1. Before we start the reconstruction, we need to understand
the thought process of the text.
2. First, we look for the conclusion(s). Conclusion indicators
help with this.
3. Knowing the conclusions, let's find the premises.
4. If necessary, rephrase the sentences. Highlight relevant
information and make clear the information relevant to the
argument.
Steps of argument reconstruction
5. Formulate the implicit premise(s) and conclusion(s).
6. Keeping in mind the entire train of thought, we reconstruct
the premise-conclusion connections. Distinguish between
convergent, linked and chain connections.
7. We return to the text again, and check whether we made a
mistake during the reconstruction, whether we deviated too
much from the text, whether forgot something, or whether we
misinterpreted a statement. If so, it should be clarified.
How to criticize an argument
• Internal criticism: In the case of internal criticism, we criticize
the argument accepted by the arguer using the premises
already accepted by the arguer. We are not disputing the
premises, but the fact that the premises do not establish or
entail the conclusion. This is the strongest criticism, but it is
relatively rare.
• The third of Hungarians are overweight. Anna is Hungarian. Thus,
Anna is overweight.
• Wait, is it not likely that Anna is overweight, since she has on 33%
chance of being overweight. I think it is more likely she is has a
normal bodyweight.
How to criticize an argument
• External criticism: In the case of external criticism, we
criticize the argument on the basis of external information not
used by the other party. We refute the premises. We criticize
the argument on the basis of new information - unknown to the
other party and not yet accepted.
• The third of Hungarians are overweight. Anna is Hungarian. Thus,
Anna is overweight.
• Are you talking about our mutual friend, Anna? She is actually not
Hungarian, but from Slovakia.
[email protected]