Argument Diagrams - Past Notes PDF

4 [ARGUMENT DIAGRAMS]{.smallcaps} \ Argument diagrams---sometimes called "argument maps"---are visual representations that identify an argument's premises and conclusions, and the relations that connect them. The present chapter teaches you one standard way to construct argument diagrams. The dia...

4 [ARGUMENT DIAGRAMS]{.smallcaps} \ Argument diagrams---sometimes called "argument maps"---are visual representations that identify an argument's premises and conclusions, and the relations that connect them. The present chapter teaches you one standard way to construct argument diagrams. The diagrams you construct will provide you with another tool that can help you summarize the form and content of an argument. \ In our discussions so far, we have standardized arguments by listing their premises and conclusions. This is a helpful way to outline their content, but a rudimentary one that has some shortcomings. Most significantly, it does not present an argument in a way that clearly shows how its premises are (and are not) related to one another, and how the argument's inferences connect its premises and subsidiary arguments to its conclusion. To provide you with a way of standardizing arguments that highlights these aspects of arguing, this chapter introduces a method of diagramming that depicts them. As you continue to practice argument analysis, you can use it as a form of argument "mapping" which represents the structure of an argument in more detail than simple standardizing. In many cases, it can in this way better set the stage for argument evaluation. **\1 Simple and Extended Arguments** We can best prepare the way for our instructions on how to construct argument diagrams by distinguishing between "simple" and "extended" arguments. A **simple argument is an argument that has** one conclusion supported by one or more premises. An **extended argument is a**n argument which has a main conclusion supported by premise(s) and premise(s) that are supported by other arguments. In an extended argument, **sub-arguments** support the premises that support the argument's principal conclusion. The author Philip Yancey wrote a book extolling the Christian notion of grace (P. Yancey, *What's So Amazing about Grace?* Zondervan, 2009, p. 247). In it, he writes that the church has "for all its flaws" dispensed grace and justice to the world. "It was Christianity, and only Christianity, that brought an end to slavery, and Christianity that inspired the first hospitals and hospices to treat the sick. The same energy drove the early labour movement, women's suffrage, prohibition, human rights campaigns, and civil rights." Notably, Yancey's argument appears in a book written for Christian readers. His argument may convince---or reinforce---this audience's conviction that there is something valuable and worthwhile in the Christian church. This may be true, though this simple argument would have to be turned into an extended argument to convince a broader audience. Those skeptical of his point of view (atheists, agnostics, adherents of non-Christian religions) are unlikely to accept his premises without debate. They are likely to need some evidence before they are willing to accept the claim that it was "only Christianity" that brought an end to slavery or that Christianity made women's suffrage possible. In turning Yancey's simple argument into an extended argument, someone who advocates for his views might back the claim that Christianity brought an end to slavery in many ways. By quoting credible historians who say so. By referring to cases in which the abolitionists who succeeded in eliminating slavery were people who were clearly motivated by their commitment to Christian religious beliefs. And so on. This illustrates the way in which a simple argument may become an extended argument. Standardizing simple arguments is a relatively straightforward endeavour: we list the premises of the argument and then the conclusion. Analyzing an extended argument is a more complex endeavour, for we need to recognize (a) a *principal* argument that establishes the arguer's main conclusion, and (b) the different sub-arguments that are used to back the premises of the principal argument. Each sub-argument has a conclusion, referred to as a **sub-conclusion**, that leads to the main conclusion of the overall argument. In each case, we will need to identify the premises and conclusion of the arguments in question. In some cases, we will need to go further and recognize a third (and possibly fourth, fifth, etc.) layer of argument that backs the premises of the sub-arguments that ultimately back the premises of the principal argument. **[Exercise 4-1]{.smallcaps}** 1\. Dentists, medical researchers, and health activists have debated the risks of "silver" amalgam fillings. The principal ingredient in these fillings is mercury, which is toxic to human beings. 2\. In each of the following cases, identify the argument as a simple or extended argument. In the latter case, identify the premises and conclusion in the principal argument and the sub-arguments that support its premises. 3\. \[From *The Vancouver Sun*, Opinion, "No reason to delay warnings, help line on cigarettes," 7 October 2010, www.vancouversun.com\] 4\. \[From a *Science Daily* article on Oct. 26, 2020, titled "Kid influencers are promoting junk food brands on YouTube"\] **\2 Argument Diagrams: Simple Arguments** When we standardize an argument, we aim to identify its content and its structure. This is our first step in an attempt to evaluate it as weak or strong. As we have already seen, the attempt to standardize arguments can for many reasons be confusing. A conclusion may be stated first or last, or sandwiched in between its premises. Premise and conclusion indicators are not always used, and the same ideas can be repeated in several different ways. Extraneous comments, digressions, and diversions (insinuations, jokes, insults, compliments, and so on) may be interspersed with the content that provides evidence for the argument's conclusion. We will call the remarks and comments that accompany but are not integral to an argument **noise**. Your first step in standardizing an argument is an attempt to eliminate whatever noise accompanies it. Sometimes noise exists in the form of introductory information that sets the stage or background for the argument that follows. Sometimes it consists of statements that are intended only as asides---but have no direct bearing on the argument but may add a flourish or a dash of humour. Sometimes noise is an attempt (conscious or unconscious) to deflect our attention away from important aspects of the arguing. In discarding noise within an argument, be careful to ensure that you do not, at the same time, discard something that is integral to the reasoning it contains. One way you can discard the noise that accompanies an argument is by constructing an **argument diagram** that maps and clarifies the argument's content and its structure. Diagramming is an especially important tool when you are first learning how to understand the structure of an argument (your own or someone else's), for it isolates the argument's key components and depicts their relationship to each other. Even after you have fine-tuned your logical skills, diagramming can be an invaluable visual aid when you must deal with complex arguments or with arguments presented in confusing ways, a very common situation in ordinary discourse. When we diagram an argument, we proceed by extracting its premises, conclusions, and the inferences it contains (the "left-overs" are noise). It is easiest to start with the conclusion, for it is what motivates the argument. Ask yourself: "What is the main point the writer or speaker is making?" The answer to this question will identify the main issue and the position the arguer is taking concerning it. In the case of a hidden conclusion, it will be implied by the context and/or the explicit claims the arguer makes. After you determine the conclusion of the argument, you can identify the premises by asking what evidence the arguer provides in support of the conclusion you have identified. They are the reasons that they give for accepting it. To construct an argument diagram, you will need to first create a "legend" that designates the argument's premises as "P1", "P2", etc., and the conclusion as "C". In an extended argument, list the intermediary secondary conclusions as "C1", "C2", etc., and designate the main conclusion they support as "MC". In the latter case, your legend will identify "P1", "P2",.... "C1", "C2,"... "MC". When you have constructed a legend for your diagram, the legend's symbols (P1, P2, C1, MC, etc.) can represent the argument's key components. You can draw a diagram by connecting them with arrows that show what follows from what. We will illustrate the principles of argument diagramming with simple arguments. If we want to diagram the argument "Thinking clearly and logically is an important skill, so all students should study the rudiments of logic," we begin with the following legend: Once we have established this legend, we can diagram our argument as: P1 C This diagram portrays the essential structure of our argument. It shows us that it consists of one premise that leads to one conclusion. Together with our legend, the diagram standardizes our argument, presenting its key components and the inference it depends on. The only word that we have left out from the original statement of the argument is the conclusion indicator "so," which this is represented by the arrow in the diagram. It is worth noting that many arguments can be represented by the same diagram. If we let: then this legend combined with our first diagram represents an argument we found in a flyer in a hotel room in the Four Points by Sheraton (hotel). The following argument comments are excerpted from a news report in the *Lakefield Chronicle* (August 12, 2024), discussing objections to an application to rezone a property on Lake Chemong to make it available for commercial development. This is a clear example of an argument that we can standardize and diagram as follows. P1 P2 C In this case, our diagram recognizes two separate premises which are offered for the conclusion, i.e., two pieces of evidence and two corresponding inferences that support the claim that the rezoning application for the proposed commercial development should be rejected. **\ Diagramming: A Shortcut Method** In most cases in this book, we accompany an argument diagram with a legend in the way that we have outlined. But we will also note a quicker method that can be used, especially when you deal with arguing on a more casual basis. The shortcut method makes it easier to deal with a written or printed passage. When we use it, we do not rewrite the premises and conclusions in a legend. Instead, we circle the corresponding statements and label them 1, 2, 3, etc. Once we have done so, we sketch a diagram that depicts the relationships between the numbered statements. Other sentences or words---noise --- can be crossed out or left uncircled and unnumbered. We have used the shortcut method of diagramming to analyze the two examples below. The first is a variant of our argument for the conclusion that all students should study logic. The second is from an article in *Wired* magazine which argues against online arguing. A close-up of a paper Description automatically generated You can adapt the shortcut method in whatever way you like, so long as your annotations clearly identify the premises and conclusions in an argument, and the diagram you draw correctly depicts its inferences. The shortcut method can be applied more quickly than our longer "official" method, which requires you to rewrite an argument's premises and conclusion in full. Use it when convenient (as we will on occasion), though there will be cases in which it is unsuitable, usually because the premises and/or conclusion of the argument need to be identified in a way that requires revisions to the actual statements in the text that you are working with---to eliminate noise, to clarify an arguer's meaning, to recognize an argument's implicit components, or for some other reason. **[Exercise 4-2 ]{.smallcaps}** 1\. Using the long or the shortcut method, diagram each of the following arguments. a\) \[An argument from Aristotle's *Nichomachean Ethics*\] b\) It seems that jurors are more willing to convict for murder when the death penalty is abolished, so maintaining the death penalty makes it more likely that more murderers will roam the streets. c\) The beach is the best place to go to really relax. The sound of the surf is one of the most soothing sounds I know. d\) \[President Donald Trump defending Rudy Giuliani during U.S. impeachment hearings in November 2019\] e\) We need a national service program for young college grads that would return the money spent for college. By the end of college, many grads have thousands of dollars' worth of loans to pay back, and no job---a national service program could satisfy that obligation. Also, recent grads could acquire valuable experience in an area in which they could get a job. There are other reasons, we face awful social problems today: crime, urban strife, drugs, and racial and class conflicts. A national service problem could help solve those problems.  2. Take any potential topic for argument and construct a simple argument and then an extended argument that results when you provide evidence for some premises of your simple argument with sub-arguments. This is a good exercise to come together with a peer and swap your work to see if someone else can diagram what you intended as a simple and extended argument. **\3 Diagramming Extended Arguments** Our first examples of argument diagrams standardize simple arguments. It should be readily apparent that the same diagramming techniques can be extrapolated in a way that can be applied to extended arguments. Consider a case where someone uses our first example---"Thinking clearly and logically is an important skill, so all students should study the rudiments of argument"---as support for the further conclusion that "Courses on critical thinking should be mandatory for all students in Nevada." In this case, the corresponding diagram would be a "serial" diagram, where: P1 C1 MC The paragraph below is excerpted from an opinion piece: "It's time to get rid of civil juries," by Laura Hillyer, in the *Globe and Mail*, September 14, 2020. This is an extended argument. The main argument it propounds can be diagrammed as follows. P1 = \[J\]ury trials take longer than judge-alone trials. P1 P2 C It should by now be evident that this is only part of the story, for the author backs each of these two premises, making them conclusions of sub-arguments. To recognize this in our standardization, we need to a more complex diagram, which we can construct as follows. MC As this example illustrates, the diagram of an extended argument always incorporates the diagrams of the simple arguments it contains, combining them in a way that depicts their relationship to the main argument. **\A Complex Example** When standardizing arguments, especially extended ones, you will often need to reword the argument you are analyzing. When we diagram, we have already seen that we delete inference indicators, since the arrows and symbols in our diagram indicate premises and conclusions and how portrays the way they are connected. More difficult questions arise when you clarify the argument, by eliminating sentences that repeat ideas, and remarks, words, and phrases that are properly classified as noise. Minor (and sometimes major) adjustments to the wording (but not the meaning) of premises and conclusion should clarify the argument. This may mean that you should change verb tenses and reformulate exclamations, rhetorical questions, and sentence fragments so that they are easily recognizable as assertions that function as a premise or conclusion. The following excerpt is taken from an article entitled "\$40,000-plus for eggs of clever, pretty women," by Kate Cox, posted on the *Sydney Morning Herald* website, 15 December 2002). We are interested in the argument it attributes to Shelley Smith: Smith's explicit opposition to the practice of employing Australian donors suggest that the criticisms she makes of this practice function as premises in an argument. Once we recognize that this is so, we can proceed with an attempt to diagram the argument. In this and other cases, we recommend the procedure we introduced earlier in the chapter. Begin by identifying the main point the arguer makes. This will help you cut through the noise that may obscure their argument. This point will be the argument's main conclusion. In our current example, Smith's main point is indicated early in the excerpt, when she says that it is unethical for American agents to use Australian egg donors. We take the following statements: as ways to underscore this point. As the discussion is focused on the use of Australian women donors, we will identify the main conclusion as: Having established this main conclusion, we need to ask what evidence Smith gives in support of it. We detect several premises. The last of these premises is included in Smith's suggestion that "Australian egg donors would not have adequate access to counselling services and possibly regret it later." We think that this is plausibly interpreted as a sub-argument, for it suggests that Australian women may regret their decision later *because* they will not have adequate access to counselling services. To capture this aspect of the reasoning we will include a sub-conclusion in our legend, which we will identify as: This completes our legend, allowing us to diagram the argument attributed to Smith: P1 P2 P3 P4 C1 MC This example is more complex than our other examples. It better illustrates the complexities that tend to arise when we "translate" ordinary language arguments into diagrams. It is especially important to observe the way we have eliminated background information, digressions, and significant repetition in the original report of the argument. The first sentence in the latter is noise that provides background information rather than the content of an argument: it explains the context of Smith's argument, but not its content. It contains nothing that needs to be included in our diagram. Our finished diagram presents a well-standardized argument that provides the key information we need to evaluate the reasoning: it shows us the lines of support there are for the main conclusion and, in one case, how one line is supported. Since diagramming is a skill that improves with practice, the best way for you to learn how to effectively diagram an argument is by completing the exercises in this book. You can then apply your mapping expertise to other arguments you come across in other courses, in debates with your friends, and in what you read and see elsewhere. **[Exercise 4-3]{.smallcaps}** 1\. Diagram each of the following extended arguments (using the shortcut or long method as you prefer): 2\. The following are responses to a *New York Times* article titled "What students are saying about ChatGPT" \[Feb 2, 2023\]. Using the long or the shortcut method, diagram each of the following arguments. a. I have never used ChatGPT, but I have used similar chatbots purely for exploration. When I used these chatbots I came to the conclusion that they aren't very good at writing papers for the fact that they are very brief and often lack the level of knowledge required to write a paper on a certain topic. When you type in a prompt they just use very brief, filler words to write your response rather than actually use educated terms. I think the concept is decent but it needs to be very much advanced upon before it can be used frequently. *--- Will, Saint Peter High School, MN* b. I personally believe that the use of chatbots and AI in school is dangerous for motivation and knowledge. Why write if a bot does it for me? Why learn when a bot does it better? I find this similar to the lack of motivation faced in math classes across the world when the portable calculator was invented and it is plausible that the same can happen in English classes if this AI is used; kids (especially high schoolers/teens) would love to generate their challenging assignments... Quite frankly I am terrified of ChatGPT's growth among the younger generations, mainly for the intelligence and motivation of the kids, but also for the future of English as an art and skill to be learned, not generated. *--- Jonathan, PACE High School, TX* c. I've had experience using ChatGPT before and it's been really helpful for me: When using it for personal questions, joke questions, or help on school assignments, it helps me gather research or understand the topic a lot better and faster... I also find it fun to experiment with, especially as a programmer. It's given me new ideas and ways to think about code. However, I do think it's important to fact check what it tells you since it's not always accurate. *--- Grange, Glenbard West High School* **\4 Linked and Convergent Premises** In order to make diagrams a more effective way to represent the structure of an argument, we will distinguish between premises that are "linked" and "convergent." **Linked premises** work as a unit. They support a conclusion when---and only when---they are conjoined. **Convergent premises** are separate and distinct from one another, offering independent evidence for a conclusion. When two premises are convergent, one of them may provide convincing support for a conclusion at the same time that another fails to. Consider, as a first example, the Sherlock Holmes argument we discussed in Chapter 1. It is an argument which can be diagrammed as follows: P1 P2 P3 The premises in this argument are convergent: each premise has a separate arrow leading to the conclusion, indicating that it provides an independent support for that conclusion. You can see this by imagining a one premise argument in which the only premise is what we have labeled P1, P2, or P3. In each case, the reasoning would be weaker, but the single premise would still provide (some) evidence for C. This shows us that the support each premise provides for the conclusion does not depend on the other premises. The situation would be very different if Sherlock Holmes used the following reasoning to conclude that the crime could not have been committed by the butler, George: In this new argument, the premises are linked: they provide support for the conclusion *only* when they are combined. The first premise---the claim that the crime was committed by someone very strong---does not provide *any* support for the conclusion that George "cannot be the culprit" unless we join it to the second premise---that George is singularly weak (if George is exceptionally strong the first premise would provide some support for the opposite conclusion: that he might be the culprit). Something similar can be said of the second premise in the argument. It provides support for the conclusion only when we combine it with the initial premise. In an argument diagram, we recognize the linked nature of these two premises by drawing an underline beneath the premises and placing a plus sign (+) between them, using a single arrow to join the two of them to the conclusion. Our finished diagram looks like this: [P1 + P2] C The underline and the plus sign that connect our premises together show that they need to be considered together---as *one* *unit* that aims to provide evidence for the conclusion. We can easily imagine Sherlock Holmes including this argument in an extended argument that takes his reasoning further. If he has already decided that either George or Janice committed the crime, he may now conclude that Janice is the culprit, for the argument above has eliminated the only other possibility. In this case, Holmes's extended argument can be diagrammed by extending our initial diagram: [P1 + P2] [C1 + P3] MC In this new diagram, C1 and P3 serve as linked premises in an inference to the main conclusion, for they provide support for it only when they are combined. When you are deciding whether some premise P is linked to other premises, ask yourself whether P provides support for the conclusion when it is considered independently of the argument's other premise(s). If its support for the conclusion depends on another premise, then these premises are linked. When you draw your argument diagrams, distinguishing between linked and convergent premises will help you see the argument as a series of inferences. A full evaluation of the argument must assess the strength of each inference. Linked premises will need to be treated as an attempt to infer a conclusion by combining them. Individual premises that are not linked to any other premises will need to be considered as single premised arguments, and assessed accordingly. **\Some Examples** To better acquaint you with argument diagrams, we have designed the following examples to illustrate the application of our diagramming method to particular arguments. MC [P1 + P2] C [P1 + P2] C1 HMC (In this case, our diagram depicts two linked premises supporting a sub-conclusion, C1, which supports a hidden main conclusion. It is hidden because it is not explicitly said, but is clearly implied by the way that C1 contradicts the claim suggested as "the principal argument" in the initial sentence of the paragraph). **[Exercise 4-4]{.smallcaps}** 1\. Create a simple argument with linked premises for each of the items below. One aspect of the argument has been provided for you. 2\. Diagram the following arguments, using the bracketed words as premises and conclusions: **\5 Diagramming Your Own Arguments** Our examples have already shown that diagramming can be a useful tool when you want to standardize an argument. We will end our discussion of diagramming by noting how it can be a useful tool when we analyze and construct arguments of our own. Some arguers find a visual representation of their thinking an invaluable tool in argument construction. Others are less inclined to diagram. You will need to decide what is best for you, though we will note that there are two ways in which diagram can help you when you build an argument of your own, especially in circumstances in which you feel some trepidation as you attempt to do so. First, a diagram will provide you with a precisely defined set of premises and conclusions and illustrate how the premises support particular conclusions. Because the structure in a diagram is clear, using one will encourage you to plot straightforward patterns of argument with clear lines of reasoning. Second, diagramming will make it clear whether multiple premises your argument contains work independently to support a conclusion or rely upon each other to provide support (or some of both). After you have drawn a diagram, turning it into a written or a spoken argument is a simple task. It requires only that you substitute premise or conclusion indicators for the arrows in the argument and make any further minor adjustments required as you turn your argument mapping into an argument in words. If your argument is an extended argument with sub-arguments, you should probably include them as separate paragraphs (or separate sections) when you commit your argument to writing. The argument that results will have a clear structure because it is built upon a structure that was clearly delineated in your diagram. Suppose you are asked to prepare an argumentative essay on a controversial contemporary debate---say, the debate on whether research which uses embryonic stem cells should be allowed. Imagine that you want to defend the position that human embryonic stem cells should *not* be used in research. You already know your main conclusion, so you need to decide what central lines of support to provide for it: these will form the sub-arguments in your diagram. Let's take the following as your reasons for your conclusion: When you go to diagram your argument, you will see that it has two linked premises and a third premise converging on the conclusion. But now you need to consider where the burden of proof lies concerning these three premises. Premise 1 seems relatively uncontroversial in Canadian society, so you can leave this without further support. The burden of proof lies with someone who would challenge it. But premise 2 could be deemed controversial and needs some support if only by way of clarification. Perhaps you could offer the following: P4: "Anything composed of human material is human by nature." This makes P2 a conclusion (C1) and expands your argument so that it is now extended rather than simple. Likewise, P3 needs to be supported, because it says there are other means to achieve some positive ends. What are they? A review of the issue would indicate that a lot of people put their trust in research using *adult* stem cells. So P5: "Research in adult stem cells promises important results" would be support for P3, making that in turn C2. Now you have a more complex argument and diagramming it shows where your lines of support lie. \ Of course, this argument could be developed further and still has several points vulnerable to counter-arguments. All we want to do here is illustrate how diagramming can serve as an aid to argument construction. If you argue well, the arguments you present will be ones that can easily be diagrammed. It should not be difficult for someone who wishes to diagram it to identify your premises and conclusions in a legend. Premise and conclusion indicators will make clear which premises are tied to which conclusions. This will allow an observer to easily determine how to use arrows to represent the inferences in your argument, and whether the premises you use should be linked or left to independently converge on the conclusion. **[Exercise 4-5]{.smallcaps}** 1\. Support or dispute 5 of the following 10 claims below by constructing and diagramming an argument. Remember, a diagram includes a standardization with a legend that corresponds with your diagram. **\Keeping it Simple** Having extolled the virtues of diagramming, we will end this chapter with a word of advice on good diagramming and good arguing. In diagramming---and in constructing arguments (and in life!)---aim for simplicity. Plot the structure of your argument so that it is relatively simple and stands out as clearly as possible. Do not defeat your purpose by creating a small-scale version of a confusing city map, with myriad roads and intersections. Your aim is a strong argument that convinces your intended audience. Do not confuse the issue by creating an argument with many hidden components, one that is open to many different interpretations, or in other ways difficult to understand. If you do, you will find that this creates difficult challenges that will make it difficult to diagram. In the case of very complex arguments, we suggest that you identify different sub-arguments and diagram them independently. If you want to create a diagram that captures the whole argument, you can then combine these already constructed diagrams. In the end, all you need is a diagram that shows clearly the role that each premise in an argument plays in argumentation. Too much elaboration will confuse instead of clarify what you are trying to say, and confuse rather than convince your reader. **[Major Exercises 4-M ]{.smallcaps}** **[(A) Knowledge Exercises]{.smallcaps}** A maze in the head of a person Description automatically generated 1\. The following are key terms or concepts discussed in this chapter. Review them. If there are any that are unfamiliar, or confusing, look them up in the Glossary. You should leave this chapter comfortable with this language. --------------------- ----------------- argument diagram noise convergent premises simple argument extended argument sub-argument linked premise sub-conclusion --------------------- ----------------- **[2.]{.smallcaps} Diagramming an argument is a method. Articulate how this method can impact your arguing style. How can it impact your audience(s)?** **[(B) skills Exercises]{.smallcaps}**  1\. Decide whether each of the following contains an argument, and explain the reasons for your decision. Diagram any arguments you find. i. \[From huffingtonpost.ca, Sorry, Your Essential Oils Are Essentially Useless," 6 February 2020\] "Many people say the plant-based oils---like lavender, mint and eucalyptus---are magical healers. Some people on the internet who say they have cancer claim they traded in chemotherapy for essential oils, and say their disease went into remission only after they made the switch. (PSA: Don't do this.) Others say essential oils relieve their migraines more swiftly than over-the-counter drugs. Some people say oils boosted their libido when nothing else seemed to do the trick. Of course, it's hard to invalidate any one person's personal experience if they say something personally helped them. However, despite the widespread claims made for essential oils, there is little science actually backing up the testimonials and not much is known about how safe and effective these products are." 2\. Given the growth of reality television and social media over the last decade, reality stars have been able to leverage their careers with social media platforms post show. However, stars from relationship reality shows face a lot of criticism when they ask the fans/public for some privacy (e.g., when their relationship faces challenges). Do reality television stars from relationship-focused shows (e.g., Love Island, The Bachelor, etc.) give up their right to privacy? Develop and diagram an argument from both perspectives. **[(C) Reflective Questions]{.smallcaps}** A light bulb in a head Description automatically generated 1\. Some people's preferred learning style is said to be visual. They are said to perceive visual information more efficiently than what can be gleaned from texts. Do you think this provides a further importance for diagramming arguments? 2\. Considering how important diagrams, graphs, and other images are to the reports of scientists, both of the "hard" and "soft" sciences, to what extent do you think such aids can be important for communicating difficult ideas? 3\. Choose one or more questions below and respond to them in writing; take approximately five minutes for each response. a. At what moment while reading Chapter 4 were you most engaged with the material? b. At what moment while reading Chapter 4 were you most distanced from the material? c. What material while reading Chapter 4 did you find most affirming or helpful? d. What material while reading Chapter 4 did you find most puzzling or confusing? e. What about the material in Chapter 4 surprised you the most? (This could be about your own reactions to the content or exercises, something that someone (e.g. your peer or instructor) did, or anything else that relates to reading this chapter). \ For more online exercises, review questions, and quizzes related to the material in this chapter, please go to https://sites.broadviewpress.com/reasoning