Refections: We need to develop the critical thinking skills to recognize and dismantle arguments. When someone argues for a position on the basis of a set of reasons, we want to be able to figure out what they are saying and whether or not they've made a good case. To do this, we need some tools and techniques. That's what I focus on here. They are incredibly useful in all areas of our lives--from personal relationships to work and school, to watching movies, reading ads, signing loan forms, figuring out who to vote for, and so on.

Goals of this chapter: To give you the foundation for constructing arguments or dismantling other people's arguments. There are two main sections (building blocks and arguments).

First I start with the building blocks of arguments. First is description vs. inference. We need to be able to see when someone is impartial or injecting their own set of values or beliefs in how and what they communicate. We need also to be able to tell the difference between facts and factual judgments, opinions and speculation, and ideas and recommendations. My goal is to help you see the difference and be able to work with them when you come upon them in different contexts.

Second: We are now ready to look at good arguments and bad arguments. My goal here is to give you the tools to take apart the argument--thus, the section on premise-indicators, conclusion-indicators, and transition words. These can be very helpful in separating the evidence from the thesis, so we can draw up the set of premises and be clear what exactly is the conclusion of the argument. Once we can break the argument into its component parts, we can then begin our assessment of how good or bad the argument actually is. Getting clear in our minds what is the author's position and what are the reasons and assumptions behind that position is crucial to developing thinking skills.

Looking ahead: This is a key chapter for getting into the groundwork. I want this chapter to work well together with the chapters on language (chapter 3), fallacies (chapter 4), analysis (chapter 5), and inductive/deductive reasoning (chapter 6).

Sharpening Our Tools: The Basics of Argument

We encounter arguments virtually every day. We need to be able to examine the structure of an argument, set out the evidence, and evaluate it. Without the fundamental concepts and basic techniques of critical thinking, we will just be moving about in an intellectual fog, guided only by gut instinct and a prayer. Once we understand the nuts and bolts of argumentation we can incorporate them into our own thought processes.

Argumentation

Arguments consist of propositions. These are assertions that are either true or false. As we know from Chapter 1, an argument presents us with a proposition (called a conclusion) drawn on the basis of a body of evidence (called premises). An argument consists of only one conclusion and at least one premise. If the same set of evidence is used to support two propositions, we have to erect two separate arguments and analyze each one. First, we should set out the argument, so the conclusion is identified and the body of evidence grouped together as the set of premises. We are then in a position to evaluate the argument and see if the reasoning is strong.

Description versus Inference

When we describe, we try to objectively state a set of facts. An inferenceis a conclusion drawn on the basis of some evidence or observations. An inference is an answer to the question, "What's it about? What story does this tell? Generally, each item in a description is either true or false, which could be verified by an examination. For example, we might describe a friend by giving her height, weight, eye color, hair color, and style, and so forth. People regularly conclude one thing or another on the basis of what they see or hear. One of the ways this process is referred to is that they are drawing inferences. An inference is the same as a conclusion. Sometimes the inferences we draw are well founded. Sometimes they are not.

Facts, Opinions, and Ideas

Facts. When we think of facts, we think of things rooted in reality, or truth. This covers actual occurrences and actions performed, as well as pieces of information corresponding to an objective reality. Facts are actually the case, known by observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is inferred, conjectured, or invented. Statements of fact include all that we can say is "true." Generally we think of facts as empirically verifiable.

Factual judgments are often treated as facts, as we see with "Smog is bad for your lungs." These are generally inferences drawn from earlier observation. An inference drawn on the basis of the fact cannot be assumed to be true, but must be scrutinized.

Opinions are statements of belief and, so, are disputable. Opinions are generally based on perception--and because are relative to the speaker's own experience or state of mind. Opinions tend to function like beliefs, varying from one speaker to the next. However, in a legal context, they may be expressed as a formal statement, a ruling, or considered advice. Court opinions, for example, function as an explanation for a decision that becomes law. An unsupported opinion should raise a red flag. Just saying what you think does not make it true.

Ideas take the form of solutions, intentions, plans of action, even theories. The ancient roots of the word go back to a general or ideal form, pattern, or standard by which things are measured. More commonly now, we use it to refer to insights, purposes, or recommendations.

Good Arguments, Bad Arguments

The first step in tackling an argument is to locate the conclusion. If we don't know where the argument is headed, we're lost in a fog. Once the conclusion is clear, we can see how the argument is structured. This entails setting out the evidence--the premises--and examining the role of any assumptions that may be a factor. If there are any unwarranted assumptions, we'd need to make note of that and decide if there are any glaring omissions. In this way, we can dismantle the argument before us.

Premise-Indicators and Conclusion-Indicators

Indicator words such as "because" and "therefore" functioning as signposts, eliminate the need for guessing as to the premises and the conclusion. These words and phrases tell us that a premise or conclusion immediately follows. If you can replace the term with "therefore" without changing the argument, the term is a conclusion-indicator, if you can replace it with "because" it's a premise-indicator.

Transition Words

Transition words precede an amplification, introduction, clarification, emphasis, illustration, and/or contrast. They do not function as premise- or conclusion- indicators, unless clearly shown as such in the context (say a list of premises or conclusions being itemized or numbered). Be careful: these words could appear anywhere--in a premise OR in a conclusion.

Analyzing Arguments

People usually offer more than one premise to support the conclusion. There has to be at least one premise to have an argument. If you have no evidence to cite, there's no argument. Only the combination of evidence and the conclusion said to follow from the evidence can form an argument. We can then see how strong the argument actually is. It helps to be organized. Here's the strategy to take:

• Find the conclusion. This gives us a sense of where we're headed. If you don't know the conclusion, you cannot analyze an argument.
• List the premises (the pieces of support for the conclusion) one by one.
• Examine the evidence (premises) to see if it is sufficient to support the conclusion. Look for any holes; such as missing premises, unwarranted assumptions, biased language, or fallacious reasoning.
• Listing the premises one by one above the conclusion makes the argument easier to read.