Understanding Arguments

• This chapter aims to aid in distinguishing arguments from opinions, reconstructing arguments into standard form, differentiating deductive arguments from inductive, and understanding value versus non-value arguments, including the significance of moral premises.

Argument Basics

• An argument isn't a heated dispute but a collection of statements, where premises provide evidence for a conclusion.
• Premises are statements that offer reasons to believe the conclusion is true and can include facts, observations, testimony, or common knowledge, and may appear as definitions, principles, or rules to support the conclusion's truth.
• An argument seeks to prove the truth/falsity of a claim to persuade others and requires at least one statement supporting it to be an argument, not just an opinion.
• Arguments consist of two or more explicit/implicit claims, where at least one gives evidence for the conclusion.

Identifying Conclusions

• One of the hardest part of analyzing arguments is identifying the conclusion from a string of statements.
• Conclusions should have at least one supporting statement, indicating a reason to believe in its truth.
• Conclusions are commonly indicated by words like "therefore," "consequently," or "hence”.
• Premises are indicated by words like "since," "because," or "if," however, real-life arguments lack distinct identifiers and require structural interpretation.
• Complex arguments involve multiple statements supporting each other, with some acting as premises supported by subpremises, where the primary defended thesis is the main conclusion.

Arguments vs. Opinions

• Arguments and opinions are often confused, a belief should serve as the conclusion of an argument.
• "Conclusion” implies an opinion or judgment derived from rational reflection on evidence & arguments are supported opinions.
• Opinions are unsupported claims, while arguments are supported claims.
• Opinions are common verbal exchanges and lack defense.
• The key question is about which opinions merit acceptance and unsupported opinions lack reasons; thus, their acceptance cannot be determined.

Burden-of-Proof Principle

• It is the responsibility of the person presenting a position to provide an argument supporting it, upon request: claimant.
• Supplying proof isn't always required unless challenged, in which case reasons must be provided.
• An exception exists for well-established/uncontroversial claims, shifting the burden to those challenging it.
• Sharing opinions requires no defense in specific contexts.
• Providing evidence for one's conclusion and questionable premises is essential.

Standard Form of an Argument

• Once reasons in support of a claim are given, the next step is to assess the argument’s quality.
• Arguments are reconstructed into a standard form, either mentally or in writing to make the argument easier to evaluate.
• The standard format of an argument is as follows: Since (premise), which is a conclusion supported by (subpremise), and (premise), which is a conclusion supported by (subpremise), and (premise), [and (implicit premise)] and (rebuttal premise), Therefore, (conclusion).
• Reconstructions involve separating premises/subpremises from the conclusion and the number of premises varies.
• Premise and conclusions can be unstated but understood from context and made explicit in brackets during standardization for clarity.
• Subarguments have subpremises supporting a premise of the main argument, standard-form reconstruction should indicate the premise that supports the conclusion, not providing direct support to the conclusion.

Principle of Charity

• If a participant's argument is being reformulated by an opponent, it should be stated in its strongest version possible that aligns with the original intention of the presenter.
• Any doubts regarding the intention or any implicit parts of the argument results in arguer receiving the benefit of the doubt and given an opportunity to amend it.
• Once an argument us reformulated, ensure fairness by allowing the presenter to correct/refine it for the best version for scrutiny.
• You should strive to formulate the argument that someone intended to make.
• All extraneous material should be eliminated and you should only supply unstated parts of the argument, eliminate irrelevant information, or use more precise language.
• The goal is to evaluate the best version of an argument and one is encouraged to allow opponents to adjust their arguments.

Deductive vs. Inductive Argument Strength

• A fair argument assessment requires understanding inductive vs. deductive arguments, as category suggests its strength.
• A deductive argument has a form where the conclusion logically follows from its premises, implying that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true, therefore, it is impossible to accept the premises and deny the conclusion without contradicting oneself.
• The conclusion of a deductive argument simply spells out what is already implicit in the premises; thus, accept the critical premises to accept the conclusion.
• An inductive argument has premises to give evidence for the conclusion's truth, but the conclusion doesn't logically follow with certainty.
• Conclusions of inductive arguments are probable as it claims beyond the premises' evidence; therefore, it might fail to consider truth-relevant, crucial information.

Value Arguments

• The presence of a value premise is required to form well-formed deductive arguments, which are called "value arguments" of moral, legal, and aesthetic arguments.
• Well-formed deductive arguments require a value judgment, must have an appropriate value criterion which warrants particular judgement.
• Moral arguments include moral principles, legal judgments reference law, and aesthetic judgments use general aesthetic criteria.

Moral Arguments

• Moral arguments are readily adaptable to the deductive form, making them among the strongest argument forms.
• Disagreement about settling moral issues stem from contending that moral judgments are personal opinions without way to discern better opinions, the rejection of which views moral value claims like any other.
• Moral claim that is undefended lacks relevant evidence are labelled as mere opinions.
• A construction moral argument has at least one essential element and are usually written with words like "ought", "should", "right", or "wrong".
• Moral premise establishes a general behavior principle that generates a moral conclusion.

Legal Arguments

• Addressing legal disputes necessitates referring to governing law, precedent, or standard: similar to moral premises in moral arguments.
• Settling legal matters is challenging due to having to determine controlling law and procedural rules.

Aesthetic Arguments

• Arguments of beauty or merit attempt to persuade others and involve agreed-upon aesthetic criteria.
• A good aesthetic argument not only meets criteria but also expresses some agreed upon aesthetic metric.
• Aesthetic arguments follow a deductive structure.
• Good arguments benefit from focus, resulting in value arguments that can be as strong or stronger, with unique moral, legal, and aesthetic features according to their respective criteria.