Linking Premises to Conclusions PDF

7 LINKING PREMISES TO CONCLUSIONs \ In Chapter 6 we extended our earlier account of strong arguments by exploring premise acceptability. In this chapter, we do so by considering validity: by looking at the link between premises and conclusions in a way that more closely scrutinizes what makes an...

7 LINKING PREMISES TO CONCLUSIONs \ In Chapter 6 we extended our earlier account of strong arguments by exploring premise acceptability. In this chapter, we do so by considering validity: by looking at the link between premises and conclusions in a way that more closely scrutinizes what makes an inference valid. As you will see, an argument is valid when it has premises which are (i) relevant to its conclusion, and (ii) sufficient to justify a decision to accept it. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to evaluate arguments by applying not two, but three general criteria for good arguing: premise acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. \ In Chapter 2 we defined a strong argument as a valid argument which has acceptable premises. It is *valid* when the conclusion follows from the premises in some important way. When judging the link between premises and the conclusion in this way, it is helpful to consider this question from two points of view. First, by asking whether the premises in an argument are *relevant* to the conclusion. Secondly, by asking whether they provide *sufficient* (i.e., enough) evidence to warrant a decision to accept the conclusion. When premises are relevant and sufficient, they make the conclusion of an argument certain, likely (or at the very least) a plausible hypothesis. \1 Relevance Good arguments have premises that are relevant to their conclusions. We count a premise or group of premises as passing the **relevancy** test when it provides some---that is, any---evidence that makes the conclusion more (or less) likely. Premises are *positively* relevant when they make a conclusion more likely and *negatively* relevant when they make it less likely. In an argument, the following statements are all relevant premises when the conclusion is: "University education is a way to build a better economic future": When you assess relevance, it is important to remember that premises may be relevant to a conclusion by providing *some* evidence in its favour, but not enough to make it convincing, definitely true, or certain. Consider the following argument, proposed in a discussion about a proposal at the United Nations. But this premise does not, by itself, guarantee that the conclusion is true. Even if *all* the members from Africa support the US proposal, this may not mean that a majority of UN members do---that may require the support of other blocs of votes as well. This means that we can accept the premise (and accept it as relevant) without having to accept the conclusion of the argument. Consider another version of our UN argument: In this case, what should be said about Premise 2? At first glance it seems irrelevant, but you may be able to imagine a circumstance in which it does make the conclusion more likely. If the US has an agreement with other nations that they will support the proposal if it is debated soon (before there is a change in the US Administration, before elections in other countries can elect administrations that oppose the proposal, and so on). \ The right to a lawyer is crucial to our justice system.... An accused is vulnerable to intimidation, conscious or not, by the authorities who arrest him. Since our society considers him innocent unless proved guilty, and believes he should not be compelled to testify against himself, justice requires that he be counselled by someone who knows the law and can advise him on which questions he must legally answer. \ 1 \(2) (3) (4) (1) \ Our diagram reveals a sub-argument that supports the main argument. In assessing relevance, this means that we must consider the bearing that statement 2 and statement 5 have on statement 1 (the MC); and the bearing that statement 3 and statement 4 each has on statement 5, a sub-conclusion. Although we may legitimately wonder whether a paralegal could take the place of a lawyer in providing the required service, we have no difficulty seeing that statement 2 and statement 5 offer the kind of evidence needed to increase one's acceptance of statement 1. Likewise, statements 3 and 4 actively increase the likelihood of statement 5 being accepted. We cannot, in view of this, find any issues of relevance in this argument. Arguments about the use of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 can further illustrate the questions raised by relevance. The most intense debate---pro and con, around the world---was whether there should be laws that make their use in public places mandatory. Some argued that this was a necessary way to prevent the spread of the corona virus. Others claimed that such requirements infringed on individual freedom and that governments had no right to enforce behaviour of this sort. In this context, a columnist for the *Calgary Herald* (Aug. 11, 2020) wrote a column entitled "The permanent mask conspiracy theory is merely a cop-out." He begins by conceding that "There are reasonable criticisms that can be levelled against mask ordinances: the civil liberties and enforcement concerns or the fact that it doesn't target more problematic behaviour, such as private parties or crowded bars where people are drinking." Having made this concession, the author goes on to write that "one argument against mask ordinances that is taken far more seriously than it deserves to be: the idea that we cannot mandate masks because it may turn out to be a permanent requirement." Arguments that mask mandates might be permanent claimed that it would lead to similar measures in the future (in regard to other viruses, like those associated with the common flu). This argument is a variant of "Appeal to Precedent" and "Slippery Slope Argument," two argument schemas we discuss in later chapters of this book. Here we will focus on one specific reason the Calgary author gives for dismissing the claim that mask mandates would be permanent. It is his claim that "none of the mask requirements that emerged during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic became permanent." We can summarize this argument as follows. This and many other COVID arguments made the "Spanish" Flu of epidemic of 1918-19 (a misnamed flu which originated in America) a common reference point in discussions, not only of masks and mask policies, but in arguments about COVID's likely impact in terms of deaths, hospitalization, the economy, public attitudes, health policy, and so on. As in the COVID pandemic, mask use was often mandated during the 1918-19 flu, and this led to many municipal ordinances that required it. As the Calgary author points out, the introduction of mask ordinances at that time did not lead to permanent mask requirements. In view of this, the premise in the argument we have standardized is true. But is the premise also relevant? We think so, for what happened in one pandemic does add some plausibility to the suggestion that it will happen in another. But we do not want to overdo this claim, and would note that some argued otherwise, maintaining that the medical, social, and political situation that characterized the COVID pandemic were radically different than those that characterized the 1918-19 flu, and that made the tendency to compare them mistaken. Certainly, one could enumerate many significant differences. Here it will suffice to note that such arguments raise the question whether (and to what extent) what happened in the 1918-19 flu is a relevant consideration when we are reasoning to conclusions about the COVID pandemic and its likely consequences. \ RELEVANCE AND HIDDEN PREMISES You are by now familiar with "hidden premises," a topic we introduced in Chapter 3. If you have trouble identifying hidden premises, the relevance requirement for good arguing can help you identify them. When you consider any argument, be cautious when you are inclined to dismiss a premise as irrelevant. Ask yourself whether it is plausible to suppose a hidden premise that will combine with the explicit premise and make it relevant to the conclusion. Consider the following argument: \ It is morally permissible to experiment on human embryos at a developmental stage prior to the formation of the brain, since there is no possibility of causing pain or distress to the organism. \ Let "1" be the statement "It is morally permissible to experiment on human embryos at a developmental stage prior to the formation of the brain" and let "2" be the statement "There is no possibility of causing pain or distress to the organism." It is clear that statement 2 is being offered as a reason for statement 1. But we might at first glance judge 2 as irrelevant to 1. How do we get from causing pain to having a brain? What would make the premise relevant to the conclusion (and provide support for it) is an explicit connection between permissible experiments and experiments that do not cause pain or distress, which the author has not explicitly provided. In such a circumstance, it is reasonable to recognize assumption as the following hidden premise. Once we recognize this premise, we can diagram the argument as follows. [2 + HP] 1 **EXERCISE** **7-1** 1\. Assess the relevance of the claims in the following lists of reasons to the claims we have outlined. For the purposes of this exercise, assume that each reason is acceptable. **Reasons:** 2\. Each of the following examples gives a response to the "siege" of the US Capitol by pro-Trump supports in January of 2021. Diagram the argument in each case and provide an analysis of relevance. You may need to indicate hidden components in some cases. The scene of Trump supporters, many of them armed, has an alarming resemblance to another scene of armed populists: The *sans-culottes* surrounding the Tuileries Palace and pushing their way into the assembly hall where French legislators were meeting. Over the next few days, large armed crowds gathered and legislators were at their mercy, forced to yield to "the will of the people." This was the start of what would become the Terror, a period of the French Revolution best remembered for the guillotine and "the blood of patriots." The violent Trump supporters at the Capitol, as well as the legislators inside it who challenged the confirmation of Joe Biden, could learn something from the tragic lessons of the French Revolution. \2 Fallacies of Relevance **Red Herring** The term "red herring" may have originated in the use of a real red herring (i.e. the fish) in fox hunting. Those training hounds for the hunt dragged this smelly fish across the trail of a fox, to teach the hounds to follow a scent despite distractions. Whether or not the term "red herring" got its meaning in this way, this explanation fits the **red herring fallacy, which occurs when an arguer shifts an audience's attention away** from the topic or argument they are supposed to address, deflecting it to a new topic that is not relevant to the one at hand. To illustrate the problem with red herring, we turn to a news interview between the former President, Donald Trump, and two White House Correspondents for *The New York Times* (Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman) on February 1, 2019. Mr. Trump had gone on record as saying the United States would not interfere in other countries and tell them what they should do. Here is a portion of the exchange: \ \ Look closely at the last response in the exchange. President Trump has been asked for the second or third time whether the US reaction to Venezuela was an exception to the policy he seemed to express in Saudi Arabia---that he was not going to tell other governments how to run their countries. Trump does not answer this question. Instead, he continually reiterates that there are terrible things happening in Venezuela. His most perplexing comment occurs when he shifts attention to Iran---saying that "they kill many, many people in Iran." We classify this as an instance of red herring, because the extent to which they kill "many, many people" in Iran does not seem relevant to the question whether Trump's approach to Venezuela is consistent with his attitude to Saudi Arabia. It is worth noting that President Trump may have been trying to say something that could fix this problem with his argumentation. For his comments do suggest three potential reasons that might justify the conclusion that he should adopt a different approach to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, for: 1. 2. 3. If he had developed this argument clearly and explicitly, we could not so easily dismiss his reasoning as an instance of red herring. For it is hard to say that such considerations are (completely) irrelevant to his conclusion. That does not prove this argument is a good one, for that requires acceptable premises that provide *sufficient* (i.e. enough) reasons to warrant the distinction he is making between Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The questions raised by the sufficiency criterion are ones that we will turn to shortly. In this context we can separate notions of "internal" and "external" relevance. Premises are internally relevant to a conclusion when they make it more likely. An argument is externally (or "contextually") relevant when it addresses the issues raised in the context in which it occurs. As in this case, red herrings often arise in dialistical situations in which two or more parties engage in arguing back and forth. In all such situations, aguers have an obligation to stay on topic and address matters that are relevant to the context of discussion. Instances of the red herring fallacy are a problems because they introduce **contextually irrelevant** reasons which shift the focus of the discussion away from what it is supposed to be. An argument which is a red herring may have internally relevant premises that make its conclusion more likely, but it is still irrelevant, because it does not address the issues the arguer is obligated to discuss. Straw Man Fallacy A "straw man" is a human figure made of straw which is used to represent a person. Historically, straw figures were used in military drills that aimed to teach recruits how to fight with an opponent. In political protests, they were burnt as effigies to protest against leaders or others they were said to represent. A straw man argument is an instance of irrelevance. An arguer who commits a straw man responds to someone else in a way that is not *relevant* because it attacks an inaccurate account of that person's view*.* Straw man can also be understood as a problem of premise *acceptability* because the arguer in question claims "My opponent claims X." but X is a distorted version of what X really claimed, so this is a false and unacceptable premise. However one treats a particular instance of straw man, the fallacy violates our obligation to construct arguments in a way that represents the view of people with opposing views in an acceptable way---fairly and accurately. Employing an incorrect (often weakened or simplified) version of an opponent's position may make it easier for an arguer to refute the position in question. But it is a false victory, because it is not the real opponent that has been defeated but a weaker replica. In the West, a book by the medieval Persian philosopher al-Ghazali was an understood as a superb guide to the tenets of Islamic Aristoteleanism---so good that al-Ghazali himself was incorrectly thought to be an Aristotelean. But as al-Ghazali himself said, he did not write his book to promote Aristoteleanism, but because he believed that one must be well versed in the ideas of others before attempting to refute them. This is the attitude we should all, as arguers, have when criticizing the views of our opponents. We should understand our opponents' views thoroughly (ideally, as well as they do). This is a way to ensure that our criticisms are not just fair and reasonable, but also telling, for this ensures that our attempt to reject their views cannot be easily dismissed. Straw man arguments represent the other side of this spectrum. They occur when an arguer misrepresents the views of those that he or she criticizes. Consider the debates that occurred in 2020, when the "Black Lives Matter" movement rose to prominence following the deaths of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and others, and the demonstrations that followed. The hashtag \#blacklivesmatter was used to promote the movement and protest against racially motivated violence and police violence. Some members of the movement advocated for the defunding of police. In response, opponents adopted the hashtag "bluelivesmatter" to show their support the police. Others involved in the debate adopted the tag \#alllivesmatter. As is often the case in these kinds of debates, the meaning of such phrases is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Those who advocated for "Black Lives Matter" aimed to acknowledge systematic, black racism---arguing that black lives have *not* mattered in past, and that this must change. When critics understood their view to mean that other lives do not matter, they could be criticized for committing the straw man fallacy. Consider the following argument sent by email to Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon. \[https://www.tmz.com/2020/06/05/jeff-bezos-explains-black-lives-matter-to-all-lives-matter-customer-complaint-amazon/\] The writer's name is Macy: \ \ There are some hidden assumptions here that can usefully be understood as hidden premises. Macy believes that in supporting the BLACK LIVES MATTER (BLM) movement, Bezos (and Amazon) did not believe that non-black lives matter. This is captured in the closing rhetorical question, which points out that Amazon depends on all people as employees. Macy's argument assumes that the BLM movement does not value other lives---otherwise, her complaint would not follow. But that's exactly the problem, her complaint does not follow because she is attributing a false position to the BLM movement. We can represent her argument as: In his response, Jeff Bezos pointed out the flaw in her reasoning: "No, Macy, I have to disagree with you. "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean other lives don't matter." In doing so, he is saying that HIDDEN PREMISE 2 is an unacceptable premise. In the rest of his response, he clarified his view of BLM, correcting Macy's straw man. Whenever an arguer criticizes a position, he or she is committed to a particular account of the position they reject. Sometimes this account is explicitly explained in their criticism. In other cases, it is assumed as a backdrop. In the latter case (as the above example illustrates), the proposed account of the position assumed can usually be recognized as a hidden premise (or a series of hidden premises) that complete the argument. In both cases, an arguer who misrepresents an opponent's position is guilty of the straw man fallacy. Sometimes this is an innocent mistake based on a misunderstanding of the position in question. In more problematic cases, an arguer purposefully misconstrues their opponent's position in some way. In many cases it is difficult to say which. Speaking at the Democratic National Convention on August 22, 2024, in a run up to a federal election, Congressman Jason Crow, claimed: that "Donald Trump's Project 2025 would abandon our troops, abandon our veterans, our allies and our principles\... Trump plans to do Putin's bidding by abandoning Ukraine and walking away from our NATO allies." What is said at a campaign rally of this sort is in many ways an extended argument in support of the party in question---and, in this case, in support of the DNC candidate for President, Kamala Harris. Congressman Crow attempts to support Harris by criticizing her opponent, Donald Trump. He does so by associating him with "Project 2025," a conservative think-tank's radical proposals to reform American government. This is problematic given that Trump very clearly stated that he was not committed to Project 2025 describing it as "seriously extreme." The suggestion that its connection to some of his former associates makes it "Donald Trump's Project 2025" is an overstatement, though one might in some way question the former President's connection to various associates (using the "guilt by association" argument scheme we discuss in chapter 14), Alternately, one might argue that Trump will do the things Congressman Crow suggests by accumulating other evidence that this is so (in his or others' remarks). But not by attributing him authorship of a report he didn't author and has explicitly rejected. The straw man problem in this case is a deep one, for Crow uses Trump's alleged connection to Project 2025 as a basis for the claim that Trump will "do Putin's bidding" and "abandon Ukraine" and "walk away from our NATO allies." Perhaps one could argue that Trump will do these things, but there is no way to infer this from Trump's alleged commitment to Project 2025, for that project does not take a position on what the U.S. should do in regard to the Ukraine-Russia war. Exercise 7-2 1\. Assess each of the following examples in terms of how well the arguers comply with the requirements of relevance. Indicate if you think they are a case of Red Herring or Straw Man. \3 Sufficiency A strong argument proposes premises that are positively relevant to its conclusion. If it failed to do so, it would not provide any support for this conclusion. But positively relevant (and acceptable) premises do not guarantee the strength of an argument. For a strong argument requires premises that are not only relevant, but *sufficient* to establish that a conclusion as more likely than not. We judge premises as passing **sufficiency** when they provide *enough* support to convince a reasonable audience that they should accept the conclusion inferred from them. You have probably seen statues of Lady Justice. She wields a sword because it is her job to enforce justice (and the law). She is blindfolded to indicate that she treats all equally (not paying any attention their importance in the rest of their lives). And she holds a set of scales on which she weighs the evidence for and against the charges made against the accused. The scale is a visual symbol that says that the evidence presented at a trial must be sufficient to warrant the judgment made---something that requires that evidence for the judgment (of guilt, liability, etc.) outweighs the evidence against it. It is useful to keep this model in mind when you are judging whether an inference in any argument presents sufficient evidence to warrant its conclusion. In a deductively valid argument, the premises provide relevant and sufficient evidence to establish the conclusion, for it is impossible to accept the premises and reject the conclusion. One cannot have premises that are more relevant and sufficient than this. In an inductively valid argument the link between the premises and conclusion is weaker, but the argument may still be strong. When it is, it provides sufficient, i.e., enough (or more than enough) evidence to convince us of the proposed conclusion. In an inductively *invalid* argument, the link between premises and conclusion is too weak to satisfy the criteria of sufficiency. Consider our earlier premise: "[un]{.smallcaps} members from Africa will support the US proposal." In a context in which we are attempting to establish the conclusion that "Most members of the [un]{.smallcaps} support the US proposal," we judged the premise to be acceptable and relevant to the claim, but *insufficient* to make the argument a strong one. For our premise does not show that a majority of UN members will support it. A strong argument creates a presumption in favour of its conclusion because a reasonable audience is more likely to adopt it than reject it, shifting the burden of proof to those who do not to provide a counter-argument. But how much evidence is enough? The answer varies from argument to argument. There are no precise rules for determining when enough evidence has been put forward in all argumentative contexts. You can't judge sufficiency simply by looking at the number of premises an argument has, since a single premise in one argument can carry as much evidence for its claim as three or four premises in another. When you are judging the sufficiency (or insufficiency) or premises in a particular argument, answering the following questions will help. **1. How broad is the conclusion?** Suppose a resident of an average-size city argues on the basis of her experience that the postal service is inadequate. Suppose she is distraught because a particularly important letter arrived ten days later than it was supposed to. Perhaps she posts a message on social media or is even interviewed on television, complaining that mail delivery is always slow and unreliable. In such a circumstance, it is difficult to deny the details of this personal testimony. We may reasonably sympathize with her, and her complaint may deserve a response that compensates her for what happened. But her personal experience is not sufficient to convince a reasonable audience of a broad claim about the postal service (that it is "always" or "usually" or "often" slow and unreliable). Perhaps she was just unlucky in this particular case and most mail (possibly almost all) is delivered quickly and reliably. The situation changes if the same person undertakes to investigate the matter and canvases her neighbourhood and other neighbourhoods throughout the city, finding numerous households with similar complaints. This result allows her to argue on the basis of a broader range of experience, making her argument stronger. But it is still not strong enough to support the claim that the postal service is always, or in general, is inadequate. She may have sufficient evidence, if her neighbourhood is like other neighbourhoods, to show that the postal service *in her city* is inadequate. To collect sufficient evidence to support her claim about the postal service across the country, she would need supporting evidence from regions and cities right across the country. This requires research that reaches far beyond her own personal experience. This example shows that broader claims need to be backed by more evidence. The more general the claim, the more evidence you need to make it a reasonable conclusion. For this reason, you are advised to keep your claims as specific as possible---or be prepared to do the research that arguments in support of broader claims require. Claims that are expressed with high degrees of certainty are particularly difficult to support without sufficient evidence. Consider the following argument: \ In 1970, the Norwegian explorer, Thor Heyerdahl, crossed the Atlantic in a raft he designed on the basis of carvings on an ancient Egyptian tomb. He landed at the island of Barbados. This proves that Barbados was the first landing place for humans in the Western world. \ We hope that you will by now see that the two premises in this argument do not provide sufficient evidence to *prove* the conclusion that "Barbados was the first landing place for humans in the Western world." There are too many other possibilities. That said, an adept arguer will recognize that they provide the right sort of relevant evidence to support a narrower claim such as "This raises the possibility that..." In many circumstances, narrowing a conclusion strengthens an inference because it claims less, and sufficient evidence in its favour is more easily provided. **2. Is the conclusion a hasty conclusion? All of us occasionally** "jump to a conclusion" that we afterwards modify or withdraw when we more carefully think about our inference. Traditionally, arguments of this sort have been termed "hasty" conclusions or generalizations (we have more to say about the latter in Chapter 11). Hasty conclusions are conclusions drawn without sufficient evidence. This does not mean that we can't make tentative claims that we test in order to see if we can gather the evidence for them. Scientific progress often proceeds this way, with hypotheses which are put forward and then subjected to rigorous testing. We would be alarmed to learn that the latest drug on the market for some ailment had been tested on only a few subjects before its manufacturers concluded that it worked. Government agencies are supposed to make sure that this does not happen. We need to similarly check our own hypotheses. But how much we need to check will differ in different circumstances. How many tomatoes in the basket do we have to check before we decide they are a good value? We're generally required to check some before we can draw a reasonable conclusion. But beyond that, circumstances will determine how many we'll have to check before we'll be willing to conclude we have a good buy. Limited evidence may be enough to draw some kinds of conclusions. If a hypothesis does not allow for any counterexamples, then a single one justifies a decision to reject it. One negative experience touching a hot stove is enough to convince a child not to do so again. In theory, the hot stove might not burn next time, but the negativity of the experience is sufficient to discourage further testing. We would not charge the child with a hasty conclusion. **3. Has the arguer provided a balanced case and discharged all of his or her argumentative obligations?** Better arguments---that is, arguments that are more likely to receive serious attention from others and to demonstrate an arguer's reasonableness---are arguments that try to give a balanced picture of an issue. If you present only the evidence supporting your position and ignore evidence that detracts from it, your audience is likely to be suspicious about what you have left out. It does not help the postal critic's argument if she presents a lot of supporting evidence only to have her opponents present evidence indicating that most people are satisfied with the service. **Special pleading** is a fallacy that occurs when an arguer selectively presents only one side of an issue. Consider the following argument: Beyond the vagueness of these charges, this argument makes no serious attempt to recognize anything positive the government may have done. It is possible that the arguer believes that nothing positive has been done. But a more complete survey of the government's performance is needed if they want their argument ton convince a broad audience. A good way to do this is by explicitly outlining and then addressing the views of those who believe that the government was right to emphasize foreign policy. We should strive to address issues with a sense of objectivity and balance. If there is evidence that goes against the position you defend in an argument, honesty demands that you introduce it and respond to it. If you cannot counter it, you should not be advancing your argument in the first place, though you may be able to convincingly advance an argument with a more qualified conclusion. In assessing the arguments of others, do not judge them too harshly if they do not anticipate all the possible objections to their claim. It is rare to have all the conditions for sufficiency fully satisfied, and a well-constructed argument that makes a reasonable attempt to respond to key objections is a positive contribution to a discussion. You can reasonably criticize arguers who do not discharge all their obligations---especially if they fail to discharge those that arise from claims and promises they make in their own arguments. If they claim a position is inconsistent, then the onus is on them to show that this is so. If they promise to show that a position has no reasonable objections to it, then you should ask whether they have fulfilled this promise. If they have failed to do so, they have not satisfied the sufficiency condition for good argument. Exercise 7-3 1\. Assess the sufficiency of different combinations of the premises offered for each of the following claims: Our discussion of relevance and sufficiency completes our account of the main criteria for judging strong arguments. We will illustrate how the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency work together in a comprehensive assessment of an extended argument. Our example is adapted from a debate over the question whether we should (or should not) expose children to traditional children's stories. \ Many people dismiss out of hand the suggestion that certain children's stories should be banned because of things like violence and stereotyping. But there is at least one reason to consider censoring some children's stories. In several common children's stories, the stepmother is an evil person who mistreats her stepchildren and wishes them ill. For example: Her stepmother wishes Snow White dead and later tries to poison her. Cinderella's stepmother treats her as a servant and mocks her in front of her stepsisters. And the stepmother of Hansel and Gretel has them abandoned in a deep forest. Since children hear these stories at an impressionable age, such stories may be instrumental in creating for young children a negative image of stepmothers. \ 1: There is *at least one* reason to *consider* censoring some children's stories. 2: In several common children's stories, the stepmother is an evil person who mistreats her stepchildren and wishes them ill. 3: Her stepmother wishes Snow White dead and later tries to poison her. 4: Cinderella's stepmother treats her as a servant and mocks her in front of her stepsisters. 5: The stepmother of Hansel and Gretel has them abandoned in a deep forest. 6: Children hear these stories at an impressionable age. 7\. Such stories may be instrumental in creating for young children a negative image of stepmothers. 3 4 5 7 1 We understand the first statement in this discourse as background. It presents the context in which the argument arises, indicating its controversial nature and stating the position with which the author disagrees. In weighing the evidence, the argument gives for its main conclusion, we will consider acceptability, relevance, and then sufficiency. This is an extended argument made up of three arguments: support proposed for statement 2 by statements 3, 4, and 5; support proposed for statement 7 by statements 2 and 6; and the support proposed for statement 1 (the main conclusion) by statement 7. In judging acceptability, we work backwards through the diagram, starting with statement 7. The claim that certain children's stories may be instrumental in creating a negative image of stepmothers for young children (7) is qualified by the phrase "may be." The writer does not have to establish that the stories *do* have this effect, only that they *may*. While the claim is still not acceptable as it stands (if it were common knowledge, there would be no need to argue for it), it is supported, and we can look to see if that support is reasonable. The claim that children hear these stories at an impressionable age is unsupported. While it may suffer from the vagueness of what constitutes an "impressionable age," we are prepared to allow the premise on the grounds that young children are commonly understood to be impressionable and these stories are read to them. To assess statement 2, we need to consider the evidence offered for it. Statements 3, 4, and 5 each reports a central and commonly known aspect of a very popular children's story. Each statement is acceptable. Together they establish statement 2, which refers to "several common" stories. Together, then, 2 and 6 are acceptable premises for 7. So the argument for it fares well on the acceptability condition. When we consider relevance, we look at the arrows in the diagram. They indicate five decisions to be made about relevance. The structure of the diagram is a good guide in these considerations. If 7 is irrelevant to the main conclusion (1) this is a far more detrimental problem than the irrelevance of one of the premises given in support of statement 2. So we will start our analysis there, noting that statement 7 is relevant to the MC. The arguer says that there is at least one reason to consider censoring some children's stories. We expect statement 7 to provide such a reason, and it does. The creation of a negative image for young children is a reason to consider censorship. Statements 2 and 6 are linked in support of 7. Why should we believe these stories may be instrumental in creating a negative image for young children? The premises give us information relevant to answering this question: each story portrays the stepmother as an evil character, and children hear this at an impressionable age. So here, again, the premises are internally relevant to the conclusion they are given to support. Finally, three arrows lead to statement 2. Statement 2 claims the image of the evil stepmother exists in "several common" stories. The most obvious evidence that would be relevant to this claim would be examples of such stories. That is exactly what each of statements 3, 4, and 5 provides. So they are all internally relevant to 2. The relevance condition for strong arguments is satisfied. To complete our assessment, we must decide whether the evidence the arguer offers is sufficient to establish the main claim and its sub-conclusions. It is important to note that the main conclusion and the sub-conclusion in statement 7 are expressed in a qualified way with no suggestion of certainty. The main conclusion maintains that "there is *at least one* reason to *consider* censoring some children's stories." It falls short of actually advocating censorship, and does not generalize about all children's stories. Evidence providing a reason to consider the possibility of censorship of some stories is enough, and this the argument provides. Statement 7 is qualified in another way, for it claims that the stories in question *may be* instrumental in creating a negative image of stepmothers in young children. Again, it does not suggest a definitive causal relationship between children's stories and negative attitudes toward stepmothers. Such a claim would be harder to defend. We judge that statements 2 and 6 together provide sufficient support for 7. Whether the three instances cited in statements 3, 4, and 5 are sufficient support for statement 2 is a matter of judgement, but statement 2 refers only to "several" stories, and the supporting premises provide three. We conclude that the argument satisfies all three conditions for a strong argument. We want to emphasize that it passes the sufficiency condition because the arguer has carefully qualified their claims, limiting the expectations the argument establishes. This is an aspect of the argument you should take to heart when building your own arguments and assessing those of others. Our evaluation of the "stepmother" argument does not end the discussion it begins. Rather, it invites further discussion and debate. Someone might take issue with its support of censorship by arguing that censorship is too strong a response to the issues raised, or that the argument lacks balance because it provides no instances of stories containing good stepmothers. These are matters that are worthy of discussion, but it is discussion that should recognize that the merits of the argument still make it an instance of good reasoning. Our three criteria for strong arguments tell us, not only whether an argument is strong or weak, but what needs to be done to make it stronger. In short, strengthening an argument requires moves that make its premises more acceptable, relevant, and sufficient. When you find arguments that are weak or have flaws, this means that you should not reject them out of hand, but should consider how and whether their flaws might be remedied. If some of their premises are irrelevant, this is a serious flaw. But it does not follow that you can definitely conclude that the argument has no merits. If there are sufficient other relevant premises, or if there is a way to make the irrelevant premises relevant by adding another premise, then there may be a way to adequately support the conclusion. Consider the following argument, which we have extracted from an article ("The trouble with dams") which appeared in *Atlantic Monthly* (August 1995, p. 74). According to the author, American water policy should be changed to enforce conservation measures, because "we squander so much \[water\] that following through on just the easiest conservation measures would save vast amounts of water." We can diagram the argument as follows: If we want to ensure that the diagram captures all of the author's reasoning, we may include, as a hidden premise, HP2, the implied assumption that it is wrong to waste water that could easily be saved. The diagram then appears as follows: P1 + HP2 C A detailed analysis of P1 and HP2 lies beyond the present discussion. At first look, the premises seem acceptable and the conclusion appears to follow from them, making this a strong argument. But if you think about it, you should be able to see that there are ways in which one might try to criticize the reasoning. One might take issue with premise 1, and argue that it isn't true that easy measures could save vast amounts of water. And even if one deems P1 acceptable, one might argue that it is not sufficient to establish the conclusion, for the United States has an abundance of water and has, therefore, no need to save water, even in easy ways. Alternatively, one could deny the sufficiency of the premises by arguing that there are disadvantages to even the easiest conservation measures: because they would mean, for example, the cancellation of dam projects (that the author is criticizing), and these projects create significant employment at a time when jobs are scarce. We will not discuss these objections in detail here, but would note that one could strengthen the argument by showing how these potential weaknesses can be remedied. If the issue is the acceptability of P1, then one could add a convincing sub-argument that backs P1 by outlining easy measures that would save "vast" amounts of water. If the problem is the sufficiency of the premises, then one can address the argument's weaknesses by adding premises to show that there is a shortage of water in the United States, or that there aren't major disadvantages to the easiest conservation measures. As this example illustrates, the three criteria for strong arguments---acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency---provide a reference point you can use to criticize weak arguments and, at the same time, a positive basis for addressing their weaknesses and remedying the faults that make them so. Exercise 7-4 1\. In each of the following cases, identify the premise(s) and conclusion in the argument. Provide an overall evaluation of each argument, deciding (i) whether the premises are acceptable; (ii) whether the premises are relevant to establish the conclusion; and (iii) whether the premises are sufficient to render the argument strong. e) \[*pagesix.com*, 5 May 2021, "Meghan Markle accused of plagiarizing book, but defended by author" by L. Brown\] ================================================================================================================== [Major Exercises]{.smallcaps} 7-M **[(A) Knowledge Exercises]{.smallcaps}** A maze in the head of a person Description automatically generated 1\. The following are key terms 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. \ 2\. Distinguish the difference between internal and contextual relevance. 3\. Explain how assessing the sufficiency of an argument is more holistic than the process of assessing acceptable premises and relevant premises. **[(B) Skills Exercises]{.smallcaps}**  1\. Assess each of the following passages in terms of the basic criteria of acceptability, relevancy, and sufficiency. Be sure to defend your assessments and comment on the overall strength of the argument in each case. 2\. Construct an essay that makes a strong argument (that meets the criteria of Acceptability, Relevance, and Sufficiency) on one of the following issues. Be sure to carefully research the issue as you work to make your premises acceptable. You can assume a position on any side of an issue. To really challenge yourself, you may want to take the position you disagree with. **[(C) Reflective Questions]{.smallcaps}** A light bulb in a head Description automatically generated 1\. Think about a claim you have made in the last week that you might have found difficult to justify. Discuss this claim with others and invite them to suggest evidence that would have met your needs. 2\. Think about some occasions when you have used the phrase "that doesn't follow" in a discussion with friends or peers. How has this chapter given you a firmer sense of what is meant by that phrase and why what it describes is such a problem? 3\. Monitor some of the exchanges in Question Period in the Canadian of UK Parliament. When a politicians who is asked a question fails to answer it, consider whether that failure results in a relevance fallacy. 4\. 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 7 were you most engaged with the material? b. At what moment while reading Chapter 7 were you most distanced from the material? c. What material while reading Chapter 7 did you find most affirming or helpful? d. What material while reading Chapter 7 did you find most puzzling or confusing? e. What about the material in Chapter 7surprised 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