Recognizing Arguments Not all passages contain arguments.

Because logic deals with arguments, it is important to be able to distinguish passages that contain arguments from those that do not. In general, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument. Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something: (1 !t least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. (" There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something#that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence. !s we have seen, the statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons are the premises, and the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or impl$ is the conclusion. It is not necessar$ that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that the premises actuall$ support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to present evidence or reasons, and there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons support or impl$ something. The first condition e%presses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is fulfilled usuall$ presents few problems. Thus, most of our attention will be concentrated on whether the second condition is fulfilled. This second condition e%presses what is called an inferential claim. The inferential claim is simpl$ the claim that the passage e%presses a certain &ind of reasoning process#that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something. 'uch a claim can be either e%plicit or implicit. !n explicit inferential claim is usuall$ asserted b$ premise or conclusion indicator words (((thus,)) ((since,)) ((because,)) ((hence,)) ((therefore,)) and so on . *%ample: The human e$e can see a source of light that is as faint as an ordinar$ candle from a distance of "+ &ilometers, through a nonabsorbing atmosphere. Thus, a powerful searchlight directed from a new moon should be visible on earth with the na&ed e$e. (,iane *. -apalia and 'all$ .end&os /lds, Psychology The word ((thus)) e%presses the claim that something is being inferred, so the passage is an argument. !n implicit inferential claim e%ists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a passage. *%ample: The price reduction 0seen with the electronic calculator1 is the result of a technological revolution. The calculator of the 1234s used integrated electronic circuits

that contained about a do5en transistors or similar components on a single chip. Toda$, mass6produced chips, onl$ a few millimeters s7uare, contain several thousand such components. (8obert '. Boi&ess and *dward *delson, Chemical Principles The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something, so we are 9ustified in calling the passage an argument. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the premises. In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or implies something, &eep an e$e out for (1 indicator words and (" the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements. In connection with these points, however, a word of caution is in order. :irst, the mere occurrence of an indicator word b$ no means guarantees the presence of an argument. :or e%ample, consider the following passages: 'ince *dison invented the phonograph, there have been man$ technological developments. 'ince *dison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a ma9or technological development. In the first passage the word ((since)) is used in a temporal sense. It means ((from the time that.)) Thus, the first passage is not an argument. In the second passage ((since)) is used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an argument. The second cautionar$ point is that it is not alwa$s eas$ to detect the occurrence of an inferential relationship between the statements in a passage, and the reader ma$ have to review a passage several times before ma&ing a decision. In reaching such a decision, it sometimes helps to mentall$ insert the word ((therefore)) before the various statements to see whether it ma&es sense to interpret one of them as following from the others. *ven with this mental aid, however, the decision whether a passage contains an inferential relationship (as well as the decision about indicator words often involves a heav$ dose of interpretation. !s a result, not ever$one will agree about ever$ passage. 'ometimes the onl$ answer possible is a conditional one: ((If this passage contains an argument, then these are the premises and that is the conclusion.)) To assist in distinguishing passages that contain arguments from those that do not, let us now investigate some t$pical &inds of nonarguments. These include simple noninferential passages, e%positor$ passages, illustrations, e%planations, and conditional statements.

Simple Noninferential Passages 'imple noninferential passages are unproblematic passages that lac& a claim that an$thing is being proved. 'uch passages contain statements that could be premises or conclusions (or both , but what is missing is a claim that an$ potential premise supports a conclusion or that an$ potential conclusion is supported b$ premises. -assages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosel$ associated statements, and reports. ! warning is a form of e%pression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or detrimental situation. *%amples: .atch out that $ou don)t slip on the ice. .hatever $ou do, never confide personal secrets to Blabbermouth Bob. If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, then there is no argument. ! piece of advice is a form of e%pression that ma&es a recommendation about some future decision or course of conduct. *%amples: ;ou should &eep a few things in mind before bu$ing a used car. Test drive the car at var$ing speeds and conditions, e%amine the oil in the cran&case, as& to see service records, and, if possible, have the engine and power train chec&ed b$ a mechanic. Before accepting a 9ob after class hours, I would suggest that $ou give careful consideration to $our course load. .ill $ou have sufficient time to prepare for classes and tests, and will the 9ob produce an e%cessive drain on $our energies< !s with warnings, if there is no evidence that is intended to prove an$thing, then there is no argument. ! statement of belief or opinion is an e%pression about what someone happens to believe or thin& at a certain time. *%amples: .e believe that our compan$ must develop and produce outstanding products that will perform a great service or fulfill a need for our customers..e believe that our business must be run at an ade7uate profit and that the services and products we offer must be better than those offered b$ competitors. (8obert ,. =a$ and *dmund 8. >ra$, ((Introduction to 'ocial 8esponsibilit$)) I thin& a nation such as ours, with its high moral traditions and commitments, has a further responsibilit$ to &now how we became drawn into this conflict, and to learn the lessons it has to teach us for the future. (!lfred =assler, Saigon, U.S.A.

Because neither of these authors ma&es an$ claim that his belief or opinion is supported b$ evidence, or that it supports some conclusion, there is no argument. Loosely associated statements ma$ be about the same general sub9ect, but the$ lac& a claim that one of them is proved b$ the others. *%ample: Not to honor men of worth will &eep the people from contention; not to value goods that are hard to come b$ will &eep them from theft; not to displa$ what is desirable will &eep them from being unsettled of mind. (?ao6T5u, Thoughts from the Tao Te Ching Because there is no claim that an$ of these statements provides evidence or reasons for believing another, there is no argument. ! report consists of a group of statements that conve$ information about some topic or event. *%ample: *ven though more of the world is immuni5ed than ever before, man$ old diseases have proven 7uite resilient in the face of changing population and environmental conditions, especiall$ in the developing world. New diseases, such as !I,', have ta&en their toll in both the North and the 'outh. ('teven ?. 'piegel, World Politics in a Ne !ra These statements could serve as the premises of an argument; but because the author ma&es no claim that the$ support or impl$ an$thing, there is no argument. !nother t$pe of report is the news report: ! powerful car bomb blew up outside the regional telephone compan$ head7uarters in @edellin, in9uring "A people and causing millions of dollars of damage to nearb$ buildings, police said. ! police statement said the 12B6pound bomb was pac&ed into a mil& churn hidden in the bac& of a stolen car. (Newspaper clipping !gain, because the reporter ma&es no claim that these statements impl$ an$thing, there is no argument. /ne must be careful, though, with reports a"out arguments: ((The !ir :orce faces a serious shortage of e%perienced pilots in the $ears ahead, because repeated overseas tours and the allure of high pa$ing 9obs with commercial airlines are winning out over lucrative bonuses to sta$ in the service,)) sa$s a prominent !ir :orce official. (Newspaper clipping -roperl$ spea&ing, this passage is not an argument, because the author of the passage

does not claim that an$thing is supported b$ evidence. 8ather, the author reports the claim b$ the !ir :orce official that something is supported b$ evidence. If such passages are interpreted as ((containing)) arguments, it must be made clear that the argument is not the author)s but one made b$ someone about whom the author is reporting. E pository Passages !n e pository passage is a &ind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed b$ one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence. If the ob9ective is not to prove the topic sentence but onl$ to e%pand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument. *%amples: There are three familiar states of matter: solid, li7uid, and gas. 'olid ob9ects ordinaril$ maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. ! li7uid occupies a definite volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. ! gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It e%pands to fill completel$ whatever container it is in. (Cohn .. =ill and ,oris D. Dolb, Chemistry for Changing Times, +th ed. There is a st$li5ed relation of artist to mass audience in the sports, especiall$ in baseball. *ach pla$er develops a st$le of his own#the swagger as he steps to the plate, the uni7ue windup a pitcher has, the clean6swinging and hard6driving hits, the precision 7uic&ness and grace of infield and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done. (@a% ?erner, America as a Ci#ili$ation In each passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining sentences merel$ develop and flesh out this topic sentence. These passages are not arguments because the$ lac& an inferential claim. =owever, e%positor$ passages differ from simple noninferential passages (such as warnings and pieces of advice in that man$ of them can also be ta&en as arguments. If the purpose of the subse7uent sentences in the passage is not onl$ to flesh out the topic sentence but also to prove it, then the passage is an argument. *%ample: '&in and the mucous membrane lining the respirator$ and digestive tracts serve as mechanical barriers to entr$ b$ microbes. /il gland secretions contain chemicals that wea&en or &ill bacteria on s&in. The respirator$ tract is lined b$ cells that sweep mucus and trapped particles up into the throat, where the$ can be swallowed.

The stomach has an acidic p=, which inhibits the growth of man$ t$pes of bacteria. ('$lvia '. @ader. %uman &iology, Eth ed. In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the purpose of the remaining sentences is not onl$ to sho ho the s&in and mucous membranes serve as barriers to microbes but to pro#e that the$ do this. Thus, the passage can be ta&en as both an e%positor$ passage and an argument. In deciding whether an e%positor$ passage should be interpreted as an argument, tr$ to determine whether the purpose of the subse7uent sentences in the passage is merel$ to develop the topic sentence or also to prove it. In borderline cases, as& $ourself whether the topic sentence ma&es a claim that ever$one accepts or agrees with. If it does, the passage is probabl$ not an argument. In real life situations authors rarel$ tr$ to prove something that ever$one alread$ accepts. =owever, if the topic sentence ma&es a claim that man$ people do not accept or have never thought about, then the purpose of the remaining sentences ma$ be both to prove the topic sentence as well as to develop it. If this be so, the passage is an argument. :inall$, if even this procedure $ields no definite answer, the onl$ alternative ma$ be to sa$ that if the passage is ta&en as an argument, then the first statement is the conclusion and the others are the premises. !llustrations !n illustration consists of a statement about a certain sub9ect combined with a reference to one or more specific instances intended to e%emplif$ that statement. Illustrations are often confused with arguments because man$ of them contain indicator words such as ((thus.)) *%amples: Fhemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented b$ molecular formulas. Thus, o%$gen is represented b$ ((/",)) water b$ ((="/,)) and sodium chloride b$ ((NaFl.)) .henever a force is e%erted on an ob9ect, the shape of the ob9ect can change. :or e%ample, when $ou s7uee5e a rubber ball or stri&e a punching bag with $our fist, the ob9ects are deformed to some e%tent. (8a$mond !. 'erwa$, Physics 'or Scientists and !ngineers, Eth ed. These selections are not arguments because the$ ma&e no claim that an$thing is being proved. In the first selection, the word ((thus)) indicates how something is done#

namel$, how chemical elements and compounds can be represented b$ formulas. In the second selection, the e%ample cited is intended to give concrete meaning to the notion of a force changing the shape of something. It is not intended primaril$ to prove that a force can change the shape of something. =owever, as with e%positor$ passages, man$ illustrations can be ta&en as arguments. 'uch arguments are often called arguments from e ample. =ere is an instance of one: .ater is an e%cellent solvent. It can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not dissolve in other li7uids. :or e%ample, salts do not dissolve in most common solvents, such as gasoline, &erosene, turpentine and cleaning fluids. But man$ salts dissolve readil$ in water. 'o do a variet$ of nonionic organic substances, such as sugars and alcohols of low molecular weight. (8obert '. Boi&ess and *dward *delson, Chemical Principles In this passage the e%amples that are cited can be interpreted as providing evidence that water can dissolve a wide range of materials that will not dissolve in other li7uids. Thus, the passage can be ta&en as both an illustration and an argument, with the second sentence being the conclusion. In deciding whether an illustration should be interpreted as an argument one must determine whether the passage merel$ shows how something is done or what something means, or whether it also purports to prove something. In borderline cases it helps to note whether the claim being illustrated is one that practicall$ ever$one accepts or agrees with. If it is, the passage is probabl$ not an argument. !s we have alread$ noted, in real life situations authors rarel$ attempt to prove what ever$one alread$ accepts. But if the claim being illustrated is one that man$ people do not accept or have never thought about, then the passage ma$ be interpreted as both an illustration and an argument. Thus, in reference to the first two e%amples we considered, most people are aware that elements and compounds can be e%pressed b$ formulas#practicall$ ever$one &nows that water is ="/#and most people &now that forces distort things#that running into a tree can cause a dent in the car bumper. But people ma$ not be aware of the fact that water dissolves man$ things that other solvents will not dissolve. This is one of the reasons for evaluating the first two e%amples as mere illustrations and the last one as an argument.

E planations /ne of the most important &inds of nonargument is the e%planation. !n e planation is a group of statements that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon. The event or phenomenon in 7uestion is usuall$ accepted as a matter of fact. *%amples: The Challenger spacecraft e%ploded after liftoff because an /6ring failed in one of the booster roc&ets. The s&$ appears blue from the earth)s surface because light ra$s from the sun are scattered b$ particles in the atmosphere. Fows can digest grass, while humans cannot, because their digestive s$stems contain en5$mes not found in humans. *ver$ e%planation is composed of two distinct components: the e%planandum and e%planans. The e planandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be e%plained, and the e planans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the e%plaining. In the first e%ample above, the e%planandum is the statement ((The Challenger spacecraft e%ploded after liftoff,)) and the e%planans is ((!n /6ring failed in one of the booster roc&ets.)) *%planations are sometimes mista&en for arguments because the$ often contain the indicator word ((because.)) ;et e%planations are not arguments because in an e%planation the purpose of the e%planans is to shed light on, or to ma&e sense of, the e%planandum event#not to prove that it occurred. In other words, the purpose of the e%planans is to show hy something is the case, while in an argument, the purpose of the premises is to prove that something is the case. In the first e%ample above, the fact that the Challenger e%ploded is &nown to ever$one. The statement that an /6ring failed in one of the booster roc&ets is not intended to prove that the spacecraft e%ploded but rather to show hy it e%ploded. In the second e%ample, the fact that the s&$ is blue is readil$ apparent. The intention of the passage is to e%plain hy it appears blue#not to prove that it appears blue. hy this is true. 'imilarl$, in the third e%ample, virtuall$ ever$one &nows that people cannot digest grass. The intention of the passage is to e%plain Thus, to distinguish e%planations from arguments, identif$ the statement that is either the e%planandum or the conclusion (usuall$ this is the statement that precedes the word ((because)) . If this statement describes an accepted matter of fact, and if the remaining statements purport to shed light on this statement, then the passage is an

e%planation. This method wor&s for practicall$ all passages that are either e%planations or arguments (but not both . =owever, as with e%positor$ passages and illustrations, there are some passages that can be interpreted as both e%planations and arguments. *%ample: .omen become into%icated b$ drin&ing a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men metaboli5e part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream whereas women do not. The purpose of this passage could be to prove the first statement to those people who do not accept it as fact, and to shed light on that fact to those people who do accept it. !lternatel$, the passage could be intended to prove the first statement to a single person who accepts its truth on blind faith or incomplete e%perience, and simultaneousl$ to shed light on this truth. Thus, the passage can be correctl$ interpreted as both an e%planation and an argument. -erhaps the greatest problem confronting the effort to distinguish e%planations from arguments lies in determining whether something is an accepted matter of fact. /bviousl$ what is accepted b$ one person ma$ not be accepted b$ another. Thus, the effort often involves determining which person or group of people the passage is directed to#the intended audience. 'ometimes the source of the passage (te%tboo&, newspaper, technical 9ournal, etc. will decide the issue. But when the passage is ta&en totall$ out of conte%t, this ma$ prove impossible. In those circumstances the onl$ possible answer ma$ be to sa$ that if the passage is an argument, then such6and6such is the conclusion and such6and6such are the premises. "onditional Statements ! conditional statement is an ((if . . . then . . .)) statement; for e%ample: If air is removed from a solid closed container, then the container will weigh less than it did. *ver$ conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement immediatel$ following the ((if)) is called the antecedent, and the one following the ((then)) is called the conse#uent. (/ccasionall$, the word ((then)) is left out, and occasionall$ the order of antecedent and conse7uent is reversed. In the above e%ample the antecedent is ((!ir is removed from a solid closed container,)) and the conse7uent is ((The container will weigh less than it did.)) This e%ample asserts a causal connection between the air being removed and the container weighing less.

=owever, not all conditional statements e%press causal connections. The statement ((If $ellow fever is an infectious disease, then the ,allas Fowbo$s are a football team)) is 9ust as much a conditional statement as the one about the closed container. Fonditional statements are not arguments, because the$ fail to meet the criteria given earlier. In an argument, at least one statement must claim to present evidence, and there must be a claim that this evidence implies something. In a conditional statement, there is no claim that either the antecedent or the conse7uent presents evidence. In other words, there is no assertion that either the antecedent or the conse7uent is true. 8ather, there is onl$ the assertion that if the antecedent is true, then so is the conse7uent. /f course, a conditional statement as a whole ma$ present evidence because it asserts a relationship between statements. ;et when conditional statements are ta&en in this sense, there is still no argument, because there is then no separate claim that this evidence implies an$thing. 'ome conditional statements are similar to arguments, however, in that the$ e%press the outcome of a reasoning process. !s such, the$ ma$ be said to have a certain inferential content. Fonsider the following: If both 'aturn and Granus have rings, then 'aturn has rings. If iron is less dense than mercur$, then it will float in mercur$. The lin& between the antecedent and conse7uent of these conditional statements resembles the inferential lin& between the premises and conclusion of an argument. ;et there is a difference because the premises of an argument are claimed to be true, whereas no such claim is made for the antecedent of a conditional statement. !ccordingl$, these conditional statements are not arguments.H ;et their inferential content ma$ be ree%pressed to form arguments: Both 'aturn and Granus have rings. Therefore, 'aturn has rings. Iron is less dense than mercur$. Therefore, iron will float in mercur$. :inall$, while no single conditional statement is an argument, a conditional statement ma$ serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both of an argument, as the following e%amples illustrate: If cigarette companies publish warning labels, then smo&ers assume the ris& of smo&ing. Figarette companies do publish warning labels.

Therefore, smo&ers assume the ris& of smo&ing. HIn sa$ing this we are temporaril$ ignoring the possibilit$ of these statements being enthymemes. !s we will see in Fhapter A, an enth$meme is an argument in which a premise or conclusion (or both is implied but not stated. If, to the second e%ample, we add the premise ((Iron is less dense than mercur$)) and the conclusion ((Therefore, iron will float in mercur$,)) we have a complete argument. To decide whether a conditional statement is an enth$meme, we must be familiar with the conte%t in which it occurs. If ban&s ma&e bad loans, then the$ will be threatened with collapse. If ban&s are threatened with collapse, then the ta%pa$er will come to the rescue. Therefore, if ban&s ma&e bad loans, then the ta%pa$er will come to the rescue. The relation between conditional statements and arguments ma$ now be summari5ed as follows: 1. ! single conditional statement is not an argument. ". ! conditional statement ma$ serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both of an argument. I. The inferential content of a conditional statement ma$ be ree%pressed to form an argument. The first two rules are especiall$ pertinent to the recognition of arguments. !ccording to the first rule, if a passage consists of a single conditional statement, it is not an argument. But if it consists of a conditional statement together with some other statement, then, b$ the second rule, it may be an argument, depending on such factors as the presence of indicator words and an inferential relationship between the statements. Fonditional statements are especiall$ important in logic because the$ e%press the relationship between necessar$ and sufficient conditions. A is said to be a sufficient condition for & whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence of &. :or e%ample, being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. /n the other hand, & is said to be a necessar$ condition for A whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence of &. Thus, being an animal is a necessar$ condition for being a dog. These relationships are e%pressed in the following conditional statements: If ( is a dog, then ( is an animal. If ( is not an animal, then ( is not a dog. The first statement sa$s that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal and the second that being an animal is a necessar$ condition for being a dog. =owever,

a little reflection reveals that these two statements sa$ e%actl$ the same thing. Thus each e%presses in one wa$ a necessar$ condition and in another wa$ a sufficient condition. The terminolog$ of sufficient and necessar$ conditions will be used in later chapters to e%press definitions and causal connections. Summary In deciding whether a passage contains an argument, one should loo& for three things: (1 indicator words such as ((therefore,)) ((since,)) ((because,)) and so on; (" an inferential relationship between the statements; and (I t$pical &inds of nonarguments. But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not guarantee the presence of an argument. /ne must chec& to see that the statement identified as the conclusion is intended to be supported b$ one or more of the other statements. !lso &eep in mind that in man$ arguments that lac& indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement. :urthermore it helps to mentall$ insert the word ((therefore)) before the various statements before deciding that a statement should be interpreted as a conclusion. The t$pical &inds of nonarguments that we have surve$ed are as follows: warnings pieces of advice statements of belief statements of opinion loosel$ associated statements reports e%positor$ passages illustrations e%planations conditional statements Deep in mind that these &inds of nonargument are not mutuall$ e%clusive, and that, for e%ample, one and the same passage can sometimes be interpreted as both a report and a statement of opinion, or as both an e%positor$ passage and an illustration. The precise &ind of nonargument a passage might be is nowhere near as important as correctl$ deciding whether or not it is an argument. !fter wor&ing the e%ercises in this section, $ou ma$, if $ou wish, proceed directl$ to 'ection 1.3 (((*%tended !rguments)) . E$ER"!SE %.&

I. ,etermine which of the following passages are arguments. :or those that are, identif$ the conclusion. :or those that are not, attempt to determine the &ind of nonarguments. J1. .omen tend to have higher pitched voices than men because the$ have shorter vocal chords. 'horter vocal chords vibrate at a higher fre7uenc$ than longer ones. ". If public education fails to improve the 7ualit$ of instruction in both primar$ and secondar$ schools, then it is li&el$ that it will lose additional students to the private sector in the $ears ahead. I. :reedom of the press is the most important of our constitutionall$ guaranteed freedoms. .ithout it, our other freedoms would be immediatel$ threatened. :urthermore, it provides the fulcrum for the advancement of new freedoms. JE. .ater is a good solvent for man$ different substances, and it pic&s them up as it moves through the environment. Thus, rain water flowing over and under the ground dissolves minerals such as limestone. (>ilbert Fastellan et al., The World of Chemistry A. It is strongl$ recommended that $ou have $our house inspected for termite damage at the earliest possible opportunit$. 3. 'hut the cage door, $ou foolK The lions are escaping into the streetsK J+. If the earth)s magnetic field disappears, then the Lan !llen radiation belt will be destro$ed. If the Lan !llen radiation belt is destro$ed, then intense cosmic ra$s will bombard the earth. Therefore, if the earth)s magnetic field disappears, then intense cosmic ra$s will bombard the earth. B. :ictional characters behave according to the same ps$chological probabilities as real people. But the characters of fiction are found in e%otic dilemmas that real people hardl$ encounter. Fonse7uentl$, fiction provides us with the opportunit$ to ponder how people react in uncommon situations, and to deduce moral lessons, ps$chological principles, and philosophical insights from their behavior. ( C.8. @cFuen and !.F. .in&ler, )eadings for Writers, Eth edition 2. I believe that it must be the polic$ of the Gnited 'tates to support free peoples who are resisting attempted sub9ugation b$ armed minorities or b$ outside pressures. I believe that we must assist free peoples to wor& out their own destinies in their own wa$. I believe that our help should be primaril$ through

economic and financial aid, which is essential to economic stabilit$ and orderl$ political processes. (-resident Truman, !ddress to Fongress, 12E+ J14. :ive college students who were accused of snea&ing into the Fincinnati Moo and tr$ing to ride the camels pleaded no contest to criminal trespass $esterda$. The students scaled a fence to get into the 5oo and then climbed another fence to get into the camel pit before securit$ officials caught them, 5oo officials said. (Newspaper clipping 11. @ortalit$ rates for women undergoing earl$ abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. Fonse7uentl$, an$ interest of the state in protecting the woman from an inherentl$ ha5ardous procedure, e%cept when it would be e7uall$ dangerous for her to forgo it, has largel$ disappeared. ( Custice Blac&mun, )oe #. Wade 1". The pace of reading, clearl$, depends entirel$ upon the reader. =e ma$ read as slowl$ or as rapidl$ as he can or wishes to read. If he does not understand something, he ma$ stop and reread it, or go in search of elucidation before continuing. The reader can accelerate his pace when the material is eas$ or less than interesting, and can slow down when it is difficult or enthralling. If what he reads is moving he can put down the boo& for a few moments and cope with his emotions without fear of losing an$thing. (@arie .inn, The Plug*In +rug J1I. Fancer is not one disease, but man$. 'ome forms are particularl$ susceptible to radiation therap$. 8adiation is carefull$ aimed at the cancerous tissue, and e%posure of normal cells is minimi5ed. If the cancer cells are &illed b$ the destructive effects of the radiation, the malignanc$ is halted. (Cohn.. =ill and ,oris D. Dolb, Chemistry for Changing Times, +th edition 1E. ?ions at Druger National -ar& in 'outh !frica are d$ing of tuberculosis. ((!ll of the lions in the par& ma$ be dead within ten $ears because the disease is incurable, and the lions have no natural resistance,)) said the deput$ director of the ,epartment of !griculture. (Newspaper clipping 1A. *conomics is of practical value in business. !n understanding of the overall

operation of the economic s$stem puts the business e%ecutive in a better position to formulate policies. The e%ecutive who understands the causes and conse7uences of inflation is better e7uipped during inflationar$ periods to ma&e more intelligent decisions than otherwise. (Fampbell 8. @cFonnell, !conomics, Bth edition J13. Bear one thing in mind before $ou begin to write $our paper: :amous literar$ wor&s, especiall$ wor&s regarded as classics, have been thoroughl$ studied to the point where prevailing opinion on them has assumed the character of orthodo%$. (C.8. @cFuen and !.F. .in&ler, )eadings for Writers, Eth edition 1+. ;oung people at universities stud$ to achieve &nowledge and not to learn a trade. .e must all learn how to support ourselves, but we must also learn how to live. .e need a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we do not want a world of modern engineers. (.inston Fhurchill, A Churchill )eader, ed. Folin 8. Foote 1B. No business concern wants to sell on credit to a customer who will prove unable or unwilling to pa$ his or her account. Fonse7uentl$, most business organi5ations include a credit department which must reach a decision on the credit worthiness of each prospective customer. (.alter B. @eigs and 8obert :. @eigs, Accounting J12. :or organisms at the sea surface, sin&ing into deep water usuall$ means death. -lant cells cannot photos$nthesi5e in the dar& depths. :ishes and other animals that descend lose contact with the main surface food suppl$ and themselves become food for strange deep6living predators. (,avid =. @ilne, ,arine -ife and the Sea "4. 'ince the 12A4s a malad$ called whirling disease has invaded G.'. fishing streams, fre7uentl$ attac&ing rainbow trout. ! parasite deforms $oung fish, which often chase their tails before d$ing, hence the name. (((Trout ,isease#! Turn for the .orse,)) National .eographic "1. ,achshunds are ideal dogs for small children, as the$ are alread$ stretched and pulled to such a length that the child cannot do much harm one wa$ or the other. (8obert Benchle$, 7uoted in Cold Noses and Warm %earts J"". !toms are the basic building bloc&s of all matter. The$ can combine to form

molecules, whose properties are generall$ ver$ different from those of the constituent atoms. Table salt, for e%ample, a simple chemical compound formed from chlorine and sodium, resembles neither the poisonous gas nor the highl$ reactive metal. (:ran& C. Blatt, Principles of Physics, "nd edition "I. The coarsest t$pe of humor is the practical /o0e1 pulling awa$ the chair from the dignitar$)s lowered bottom. The victim is perceived first as a person of conse7uence, then suddenl$ as an inert bod$ sub9ect to the laws of ph$sics: authorit$ is debun&ed b$ gravit$, mind b$ matter; man is degraded to a mechanism. (!rthur Doestler, 2anus1 A Summing Up "E. If a man holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards &eeps down and pushes awa$ an$ doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposel$ avoids the reading of boo&s and the compan$ of men that call in 7uestion or discuss it, and regards as impious those 7uestions which cannot easil$ be as&ed without disturbing it#the life of that man is one long sin against man&ind. (.. D. Flifford, ((The *thics of Belief)) J"A. It is usuall$ eas$ to decide whether or not something is alive. This is because living things share man$ common attributes, such as the capacit$ to e%tract energ$ from nutrients to drive their various functions, the power to activel$ respond to changes in their environment, and the abilit$ to grow, to differentiate, and to reproduce. (,onald Loet and Cudith >. Loet, &iochemistry, "nd edition "3. .ords are slipper$ customers. The full meaning of a word does not appear until it is placed in its conte%t. . . . !nd even then the meaning will depend upon the listener, upon the spea&er, upon their entire e%perience of the language, upon their &nowledge of one another, and upon the whole situation. (F. Fherr$, 3n %uman Communication "+. =a$dn developed the string 7uartet from the eighteenth centur$ di#ertimento, giving more substance to the light, popular form and scoring it for two violins, a viola, and a cello. =is eight$6three 7uartets, written over the course of his creative lifetime, evolved slowl$ into a sophisticated form. Together the$ constitute one of the most important bodies of chamber music

literature. (8obert =ic&o&, !xploring ,usic J"B. ! person never becomes trul$ self6reliant. *ven though he deals effectivel$ with things, he is necessaril$ dependent upon those who have taught him to do so. The$ have selected the things he is dependent upon and determined the &inds and degrees of dependencies. (B. :. '&inner, &eyond 'reedom and +ignity "2. There is no doubt that some businessmen conspire to shorten the useful life of their products in order to guarantee replacement sales. There is, similarl$, no doubt that man$ of the annual model changes with which !merican (and other consumers are increasingl$ familiar are not technologicall$ substantive. (!lvin Toffler, 'uture Shoc0 I4. If one &nows the plant life of an area, certain assumptions can be made about the climate and the animals that will be found there. :or e%ample, in grasslands the animal life t$picall$ includes large mammalian herbivores, insects, and birds. (Ding, 'aunders, and .allace, &iology1 The Science of -ife JI1. In areas where rats are a problem, it is ver$ difficult to e%terminate themwith bait poison. That)s because some rats eat enough poison to die but others eat onl$ enough to become sic& and then learn to avoid that particular poison taste in the future. (8od -lotni&, Introduction to Psychology, Eth edition I". @en are less li&el$ to develop osteoporosis until later in life than women and seldom suffer as severel$ because the$ have I4 percent more bone mass on the average and don)t undergo the sudden drop in estrogen that occurs with menopause. (@att Flar&, ((The Falcium Fra5e,)) Ne s ee0 II. Newspapers, radio, and television are essential for a democrac$. The$ are the critical lin& between the people and their government. The$ provide information and anal$sis about polic$ issues, and the$ also sensiti5e polic$ma&ers to public opinion#which enables them to respond to the needs and desires of the population. :inall$, the media pla$ a critical role in reporting and evaluating the decisions of government.

('tephen C. .a$ne et al., The Politics of American .o#ernment JIE. Nations are made in two wa$s, b$ the slow wor&ing of histor$ or the galvanic force of ideas. @ost nations are made the former wa$, emerging slowl$ from the mist of the past, graduall$ coalescing within concentric circles of shared s$mpathies, with an accretion of consensual institutions. But a few nations are formed and defined b$ the citi5ens) assent to a shared philosoph$. (>eorge .ill, ((?ithuania and 'outh Farolina)) IA. !lthough the plane mirror is perhaps the oldest optical instrument &nown to man, it remains an important element in the modern arsenal of sophisticated optical devices. :or e%ample, the earth6moon laser6ranging e%periments, initiated in 1232, rel$ on high67ualit$ reflectors. (:ran& C. Blatt, Principles of Physics, "nd edition II. The following selections were originall$ submitted as letters to the editor of newspapers and maga5ines. ,etermine which of them can, with good reason, be considered arguments. In those that can, identif$ the conclusion. J1. .hat this countr$ needs is a return to the concept of swift and certain 9ustice. If we need more courts, 9udges and prisons, then so be it. !nd as for capital punishment, I sa$ let the punishment fit the crime. .hen criminals behave more li&e humans, then we can start to treat them more humanel$. In the meantime, I would li&e to see the Night 'tal&ers of our societ$ swiftl$ e%ecuted rather than coddled b$ our courts and prisons. ( Cohn -earson ". The big problem with computers in elementar$ schools isn)t their minimal educational value but the fact that the$ often replace science in the budget and curriculum. /ur local -arent Teachers !ssociation is throwing awa$ science e7uipment as ferventl$ as it raises mone$ for more computers. I use computers e%tensivel$ in the college ph$sics classes I teach, so I appreciate their value in communications and advanced computation. But in elementar$ schools, too much is being sacrificed so that children can have all those price$ beige bo%es. (8oger >. Tobin I. Is there an$ countr$ in the world that worries more about its &ids having fun in school, ma&ing lessons e%citing and relevant, and then is more disappointed with the result than the Gnited 'tates<.e thin& learning is li&e bu$ing

a car or smo&ing a cigarette. Cust get into the thing or draw a breath and $ou will be effortlessl$ transported to lands of pleasure and e%citement. (Fharles @. Breinin JE. !fter reading $our cover stor$, I find that cable TL has simpl$ flooded our airwaves with more se%, violence and teen6age pun& 9un&. Now our children can spend even less time stud$ing and we can spend more time in blan&space stares at the idiot bo%. Fable would be fine with more educational channels#and fewer cheap thrills aimed at narrow6minded bubble brains. ( Cac7ueline @urra$ A. In opposing obligator$ pra$er in the public schools, I am not deserting m$ god (and I would li&e to thin& of m$self as a Fhristian . /n the contrar$, it is perfectl$ possible that I am thus serving m$ god, who I believe wants his children to pra$ to him of their own free will and not because some legislator, who ma$ or ma$ not be motivated b$ trul$ religious considerations, forces them to. (-hilip ,. .al&er 3. @$ own son returned from his public elementar$ school with a boo& on dinosaurs loaned to him b$ his first6grade ((science)) teacher. It depicted the beasts as fire6breathing dragons and said the Bible informs us the$ were this wa$. >od help us to achieve an educated and scientificall$ literate societ$, because these narrow6minded cretins won)t. (Bruce 'trathdee J+. The poor 7ualit$ of parenting and the lac& in continuit$ of adult care provided to man$ G.'. children contribute to a passivit$ and a sense of helplessness that hobbles individuals for the remainder of their lives. Their subse7uent unemplo$ment, lac& of education, and inabilit$ to ma&e necessar$ life6st$le changes such as 7uitting an addiction can be attributed, in large part, to the helplessness the$ learned from childhood. (.illiam C. @cFarth$ B. :ort$6one million !mericans cannot afford health insurance in this time of global capitalism. !t the same time, nine insurance e%ecutives earned more than N14 million last $ear, according to a recent stud$. If this is the celebrated triumph of capitalism over other forms of economic organi5ation, what e%actl$ did we win< =ave we gained the world at the cost of our souls< ( Cason 8e$nolds

2. The suggestion b$ sociobiologists that stepparent child abuse has evolutionar$ advantages is superficial. If there were evolutionar$ advantages to harming one)s mate)s offspring of a different parent, then b$ now there probabl$ wouldn)t be loving and generous stepparents around#and there are plent$. I &now. I have a loving stepparent and am one. (8onald Fohen J14. The voting public is as full of bull as the politicians. !s a result, we get the &ind of officeholders we as& for. 'how me a politician who will stand up and tell !mericans the truth, and I)ll show $ou a person who will never be elected. (=uie ,i%on III. The following statements represent conclusions for arguments. *ach is e%pressed in the form of two alternatives. 'elect one of the alternatives for each conclusion, and then 9ot down several reasons that support it. :inall$, incorporate $our reasons into a written argument of at least 144 words that supports the conclusion. Include premise and conclusion indicators in some of $our arguments, but not in all of them. 1. ! constitutional amendment that outlaws flag burning shouldOshould not be adopted. ". 'treet drugs shouldOshould not be legali5ed. '& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts I. The death penalt$ shouldOshould not be abolished. E. 'anctions shouldOshould not be imposed on students for using speech that is offensive to minorities. A. :ree health care shouldOshould not be guaranteed to all citi5ens. 3. 'ame6se% marriages shouldOshould not be recogni5ed b$ the state. +. The possession, ownership, and sale of handguns shouldOshould not be outlawed. B. Figarettes shouldOshould not be regulated as an addictive drug. 2. !ffirmative action programs shouldOshould not be abolished. 14. ,octors shouldOshould not be allowed to assist terminall$ ill patients in committing suicide. IL. ,efine the following terms: argument from e%ample

conditional statement antecedent conse7uent sufficient condition necessar$ condition e%planation e%planandum e%planans illustration e%positor$ passage L. !nswer ((true)) or ((false)) to the following statements: 1. !n$ passage that contains an argument must contain a claim that something is supported b$ evidence or reasons. ". In an argument, the claim that something is supported b$ evidence or reasons is alwa$s e%plicit. I. -assages that contain indicator words such as ((thus,)) ((since,)) and ((because)) are alwa$s arguments. E. In deciding whether a passage contains an argument, we should alwa$s &eep an e$e out for indicator words and the presence of an inferential relationship between the statements. A. 'ome e%positor$ passages can be correctl$ interpreted as arguments. 3. 'ome illustrations can be correctl$ interpreted as arguments. +. In deciding whether an e%positor$ passage or an illustration should be interpreted as an argument, it helps to note whether the claim being developed or illustrated is one that is accepted b$ ever$one. B. 'ome conditional statements can be ree%pressed to form arguments. 2. In an e%planation, the e%planandum usuall$ describes an accepted matter of fact. 14. In an e%planation, the e%planans is the statement or group of statements that does the e%plaining. LI. :ill in the blan&s with ((necessar$)) or ((sufficient)) to ma&e the following statements true. !fter the blan&s have been filled in, e%press the result in terms of conditional statements. J1. Being a tiger is a condition for being an animal.

". Being an animal is a condition for being a tiger. I. ,rin&ing water is a condition for 7uenching one)s thirst. JE. =aving a rac7uet is a condition for pla$ing tennis. A. -ulling the cor& is a condition for drin&ing an e%pensive bottle of wine. 3. 'tepping on a cat)s tail is a condition for ma&ing the cat $owl. J+. Burning leaves is a condition for producing smo&e. B. -a$ing attention is a condition for understanding a lecture. 2. Ta&ing a swim in the North 'ea is a condition for cooling off. J14. /pening a door is a condition for crossing the threshold. LII. -age through a boo&, maga5ine, or newspaper and find two arguments, one with indicator words, the other without. Fop$ the arguments as written, giving the appropriate reference. Then identif$ the premises and conclusion of each. %.' +eduction and !nduction !rguments can be divided into two groups: deductive and inductive. ! deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is impossi"le for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises. /n the other hand, an inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is impro"a"le that the premises be true and the conclusion false. In these arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow onl$ pro"a"ly from the premises. Thus, deductive arguments are those that involve necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments are those that involve pro"a"ilistic reasoning. *%amples: The meer&at is closel$ related to the suricat. The suricat thrives on beetle larvae. Therefore, probabl$ the meer&at thrives on beetle larvae. The meer&at is a member of the mongoose famil$. !ll members of the mongoose famil$ are carnivores. Therefore, it necessaril$ follows that the meer&at is a carnivore. The first of these arguments is inductive, the second deductive.

The distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in the strength of an argument)s inferential claim. In other words, the distinction lies in how strongl$ the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises. Gnfortunatel$, however, in most arguments the strength of this claim is not e%plicitl$ stated, so we must use our interpretive abilities to evaluate it. Three factors that influence our decision about this claim are (1 the occurrence of special indicator words, (" the actual strength of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion, and (I the character or form of argumentation the arguer uses. The occurrence of special indicator words is illustrated in the e%amples we 9ust considered. The word ((probabl$)) in the conclusion of the first argument suggests that the argument should be ta&en as inductive, and the word ((necessaril$)) in the conclusion of the second suggests that the second argument be ta&en as deductive. !dditional inductive indicators are ((improbable,)) ((plausible,)) ((implausible,)) ((li&el$,)) ((unli&el$,)) and ((reasonable to conclude.)) !dditional deductive indicators are ((certainl$,)) ((absolutel$,)) and ((definitel$.)) (Note that the phrase ((it must be the case that)) is ambiguous; ((must)) can indicate either probabilit$ or necessit$ . Inductive and deductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation. =owever, if the$ conflict with one of the other criteria (discussed shortl$ , we should probabl$ ignore them. !rguers often use phrases such as ((it certainl$ follows that)) for rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest that the argument be ta&en as deductive. 'imilarl$, some arguers, not &nowing the distinction between inductive and deductive, will claim to ((deduce)) a conclusion when their argument is more correctl$ interpreted as inductive. The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as inductive or deductive is the actual strength of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion actuall$ does follow with strict necessit$ from the premises, the argument is clearl$ deductive. In such an argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. /n the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow with strict necessit$ but does follow probabl$, it is usuall$ best to consider the argument inductive. *%amples: !ll saleswomen are e%troverts. *li5abeth Ta$lor is a saleswoman. Therefore, *li5abeth Ta$lor is an e%trovert.

The vast ma9orit$ of saleswomen are e%troverts. *li5abeth Ta$lor is a saleswoman. Therefore, *li5abeth Ta$lor is an e%trovert. In the first e%ample, the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises. If we assume that all saleswomen are e%troverts and that *li5abeth Ta$lor is a saleswoman, then it is impossible that *li5abeth Ta$lor not be an e%trovert. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the second e%ample, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict necessit$, but it does follow with some degree of probabilit$. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is improbable that the conclusion is false. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as inductive. /ccasionall$, an argument contains no indicator words, and the conclusion does not follow either necessaril$ or probabl$ from the premises; in other words, it does not follow at all. This situation points up the need for the third factor to be ta&en into account, which is the character or form of argumentation the arguer uses. :ive e%amples of argumentation that are t$picall$ deductive are arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and categorical, h$pothetical, and dis9unctive s$llogisms. !dditional ones will be addressed in later chapters. !n argument based on mat(ematics is an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purel$ arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. :or e%ample, a shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a paper bag and then conclude that the bag contains five pieces of fruit. /r a surve$or might measure a s7uare piece of land and, after determining that it is 144 feet on each side, conclude that it contains 14,444 s7uare feet. 'ince all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usuall$ consider arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well. ! noteworth$ e%ception, however, is arguments that depend on statistics. !s we will see shortl$, such arguments are usuall$ best interpreted as inductive. !n argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merel$ upon the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. :or e%ample, someone might argue that because Flaudia is mendacious, it follows that she tells lies, or that because a certain paragraph is proli%, it follows that it is e%cessivel$ word$. These arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessit$ from the definitions of ((mendacious)) and ((proli%.)) ! s$llogism, in general, is an argument consisting of e%actl$ two premises and one

conclusion. Fategorical s$llogisms will be treated in greater depth in Fhapter A, but for now we will sa$ that a categorical syllogism is a s$llogism in which each statement begins with one of the words ((all,)) ((no,)) or ((some.)) *%ample: !ll lasers are optical devices. 'ome lasers are surgical instruments. Therefore, some optical devices are surgical instruments. !rguments such as these are nearl$ alwa$s best treated as deductive. ! (ypot(etical syllogism is a s$llogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. *%amples: If electricit$ flows through a conductor, then a magnetic field is produced. If a magnetic field is produced, then a nearb$ compass will be deflected. Therefore, if electricit$ flows through a conductor, then a nearb$ compass will be deflected. If 7uart5 scratches glass, then 7uart5 is harder than glass. Puart5 scratches glass. Therefore, 7uart5 is harder than glass. !lthough certain forms of such arguments can sometimes be interpreted inductivel$, the deductive interpretation is usuall$ the most appropriate. ! dis,unctive syllogism is a s$llogism having a dis9unctive statement (i.e., an ((either . . . or . . .)) statement for one of its premises. *%ample: *ither breach of contract is a crime or it is not punishable b$ the state. Breach of contract is not a crime. Therefore, it is not punishable b$ the state. !s with h$pothetical s$llogisms, such arguments are usuall$ best ta&en as deductive. =$pothetical and dis9unctive s$llogisms will be treated in greater depth in Fhapter 3. Now let us consider some t$picall$ inductive forms of argumentation. In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion is in some wa$ intended to ((go be$ond)) the content of the premises. The premises of such an argument t$picall$ deal with some sub9ect that is relativel$ familiar, and the conclusion then moves be$ond this to a sub9ect that is less familiar or that little is &nown about. 'uch an argument ma$ ta&e an$ of several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analog$, inductive generali5ations, arguments from authorit$, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences, to name 9ust a few. In a prediction, the premises deal with some &nown event in the present or past,

and the conclusion moves be$ond this event to some event in the relative future. :or e%ample, someone might argue that because certain meteorological phenomena have been observed to develop over a certain region of central @issouri, a storm will occur there in si% hours. /r again, one might argue that because certain fluctuations occurred in the prime interest rate on :rida$, the value of the dollar will decrease against foreign currencies on @onda$. Nearl$ ever$one reali5es that the future cannot be &nown with certaint$; thus, whenever an argument ma&es a prediction about the future, one is usuall$ 9ustified in considering the argument inductive. !n argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the e%istence of an analog$, or similarit$, between two things or states of affairs. Because of the e%istence of this analog$, a certain condition that affects the better6&nown thing or situation is concluded to affect the similar, lesser6&nown thing or situation. :or e%ample, someone might argue that because Fhristina)s -orsche is a great handling car, it follows that !ngela)s -orsche must also be a great handling car. The argument depends on the e%istence of a similarit$, or analog$, between the two cars. The certitude attending such an inference is obviousl$ probabilistic at best. !n inductive generalization is an argument that proceeds from the &nowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic, it is argued that all the members of the group have that same characteristic. :or e%ample, one might argue that because three oranges selected from a certain crate were especiall$ tast$ and 9uic$, all the oranges from that crate are especiall$ tast$ and 9uic$. /r again, one might argue that because si% out of a total of nine members sampled from a certain labor union intend to vote for Cohnson for union president, two6thirds of the entire membership intend to vote for Cohnson. These e%amples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive argumentation. !n argument from aut(ority is an argument in which the conclusion rests upon a statement made b$ some presumed authorit$ or witness. :or e%ample, a person might argue that earnings for =ewlett6-ac&ard Forporation will be up in the coming 7uarter because of a statement to that effect b$ an investment counselor. /r a law$er might argue that @ac& the Dnife committed the murder because an e$ewitness testified to that effect under oath. Because the investment counselor and the e$ewitness could be either mista&en or l$ing, such arguments are essentiall$ probabilistic. !n argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds from the &nowledge of a certain sign to a &nowledge of the thing or situation that the sign s$mboli5es. :or

e%ample, when driving on an unfamiliar highwa$ one might see a sign indicating that the road ma&es several sharp turns one mile ahead. Based on this information, one might argue that the road does indeed ma&e several sharp turns one mile ahead. Because the sign might be misplaced or in error about the turns, the conclusion is onl$ probable. ! causal inference underlies arguments that proceed from &nowledge of a cause to &nowledge of the effect, or, conversel$, from &nowledge of an effect to &nowledge of a cause. :or e%ample, from the &nowledge that a bottle of wine had been accidentall$ left in the free5er overnight, someone might conclude that it had fro5en (cause to effect . Fonversel$, after tasting a piece of chic&en and finding it dr$ and crunch$, one might conclude that it had been overcoo&ed (effect to cause . Because specific instances of cause and effect can never be &nown with absolute certaint$, one ma$ usuall$ interpret such arguments as inductive. It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive arguments listed here are not intended to be mutuall$ e%clusive. /verlaps can and do occur. :or e%ample, man$ causal inferences that proceed from cause to effect also 7ualif$ as predictions. The purpose of this surve$ is not to demarcate in precise terms the various forms of induction but rather to provide guidelines for distinguishing induction from deduction. Deeping this in mind, we should ta&e care not to confuse arguments in geometr$, which are alwa$s deductive, with arguments from analog$ or inductive generali5ations. :or e%ample, an argument concluding that a triangle has a certain attribute (such as a right angle because another triangle, with which it is congruent, also has that attribute might be mista&en for an argument from analog$. 'imilarl$, an argument that concludes that all triangles have a certain attribute (such as angles totaling two right angles because an$ particular triangle has that attribute might be mista&en for an inductive generali5ation. !rguments such as these, however, are alwa$s deductive, because the conclusion follows necessaril$ and with complete certaint$ from the premises. /ne broad classification of arguments not listed in this surve$ is scientific arguments. !rguments that occur in science can be either inductive or deductive, depending on the circumstances. In general, arguments aimed at the disco#ery of a law of nature are usuall$ considered inductive. 'uppose, for e%ample, that we want to discover a law that governs the time re7uired for a falling bod$ to stri&e the earth. .e drop bodies of various weights from various heights and measure the time it ta&es them to fall. Fomparing our measurements, we notice that the time is appro%imatel$ proportional to the s7uare root of the distance. :rom this we conclude that

the time re7uired for an$ bod$ to fall is proportional to the s7uare root of the distance through which it falls. 'uch an argument is best interpreted as an inductive generali5ation. !nother t$pe of argument that occurs in science has to do with the application of &nown laws to specific circumstances. !rguments of this sort are often considered to be deductive#but onl$ with certain reservations. 'uppose, for e%ample, that we want to appl$ Bo$le)s law for ideal gases to a container of gas in our laborator$. Bo$le)s law states that the pressure e%erted b$ a gas on the walls of its container is inversel$ proportional to the volume. !ppl$ing this law, we conclude that when we reduce the volume of our laborator$ sample b$ half, we will double the pressure. Fonsidered purel$ as a mathematical computation, this argument is deductive. But if we ac&nowledge the fact that the conclusion pertains to the future and the possibilit$ that Bo$le)s law ma$ not wor& in the future, then the argument is best considered inductive. ! final point needs to be made about the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. There is a tradition e%tending bac& to the time of !ristotle which holds that inductive arguments are those that proceed from the particular to the general, while deductive arguments are those that proceed from the general to the particular. (! particular statement is one that ma&es a claim about one or more particular members of a class, while a general statement ma&es a claim about all the members of a class. It is true, of course, that man$ inductive and deductive arguments do wor& in this wa$; but this fact should not be used as a criterion for distinguishing induction from deduction. !s a matter of fact, there are deductive arguments that proceed from the general to the general, from the particular to the particular, and from the particular to the general, as well as from the general to the particular; and there are inductive arguments that do the same. :or e%ample, here is a deductive argument that proceeds from the particular to the general: Three is a prime number. :ive is a prime number. 'even is a prime number. Therefore, all odd numbers between two and eight are prime numbers. !nd here is one that proceeds from the particular to the particular: >abriel is a wolf. >abriel has a tail. Therefore, >abriel)s tail is the tail of a wolf.

=ere is an inductive argument that proceeds from the general to the particular: !ll emeralds previousl$ found have been green. Therefore, the ne%t emerald to be found will be green. The other varieties are eas$ to construct. Thus, the progression from particular to general, and vice versa, cannot be used as a criterion for distinguishing induction from deduction. In summar$, to distinguish deductive arguments from inductive, we loo& for special indicator words, the actual strength of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion, and the character or form of argumentation. If the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises, the argument is alwa$s deductive; if not, it could be either deductive or inductive depending on the other factors. The deductive and inductive arguments that we have surve$ed in this section are as follows: deductive arguments: arguments based on mathematics arguments from definition categorical s$llogisms h$pothetical s$llogisms dis9unctive s$llogisms inductive arguments: predictions arguments from analog$ inductive generali5ations arguments from authorit$ arguments based on signs causal inferences E$ER"!SE %.' I. ,etermine whether the following arguments are best interpreted as being inductive or deductive. !lso state the criteria $ou use in reaching $our decision (i.e., the presence of indicator words, the nature of the inferential lin& between premises and conclusion, or the character or form of argumentation . J1. Because triangle ! is congruent with triangle B, and triangle ! is isosceles, it follows that triangle B is isosceles. ". The pla7ue on the leaning tower of -isa sa$s that >alileo performed e%periments there with falling ob9ects. It must be the case that >alileo did indeed

perform those e%periments there. I. The rainfall in 'eattle has been more than 1A inches ever$ $ear for the past thirt$ $ears. Therefore, the rainfall ne%t $ear will probabl$ be more than 1A inches. JE. No *6mail messages are elo7uent creations. 'ome love letters are elo7uent creations. Therefore, some love letters are not *6mail messages. A. !moco, *%%on, and Te%aco are all listed on the New ;or& 'toc& *%change. It must be the case that all ma9or !merican oil companies are listed on the New ;or& 'toc& *%change. 3. The longer a pendulum is, the longer it ta&es to swing. Therefore, when the pendulum of a cloc& is lengthened, the cloc& slows down. J+. -a$ing off terrorists in e%change for hostages is not a wise polic$, since such action will onl$ lead them to ta&e more hostages in the future. B. The @atterhorn is higher than @ount .hitne$, and @ount .hitne$ is higher than @ount 8ainier. The obvious conclusion is that the @atterhorn is higher than @ount 8ainier. 2. !lthough both front and rear doors were found open after the burglar$, there were pr$ mar&s around the loc& on the rear door and deposits of mud near the threshold. It must be the case that the thief entered through the rear door and left through the front. J14. The !ncylopaedia &ritannica has an article on s$mbiosis. The !ncyclopedia Americana, li&e the &ritannica, is an e%cellent reference wor&. Therefore, the Americana probabl$ also has an article on s$mbiosis. 11. Fholesterol is endogenous with humans. Therefore, it is manufactured inside the human bod$. 1". *ither classical culture originated in >reece, or it originated in *g$pt. Flassical culture did not originate in *g$pt. Therefore, classical culture originated in >reece. J1I. .orld6renowned ph$sicist 'tephen =aw&ing sa$s that the condition of the universe at the instant of the Big Bang was more highl$ ordered than it is toda$. In view of =aw&ing)s stature in the scientific communit$, we should conclude that this description of the universe is correct. 1E. If !le%ander the >reat died from t$phoid fever, then he became infected in India. !le%ander the >reat did die from t$phoid fever. Therefore, he became infected in India.

1A. It seems li&el$ that $oung people will be at war with old people in another 1A or "4 $ears. ;ou can see it coming in the numbers. In 1244 onl$ 1 percent of the population was older than +A. Toda$ E percent of all !mericans are more than +A $ears old, and in a few $ears it)s going to be A percent . . . 1I million people. (Newspaper editorial J13. *ach element, such as h$drogen and iron, has a set of gaps#wavelengths that it absorbs rather than radiates. 'o if those wavelengths are missing from the spectrum, $ou &now that that element is present in the star $ou are observing. (8ic& >ore, ((*$es of 'cience)) 1+. Because the apparent dail$ movement which is common to both the planets and the fi%ed stars is seen to travel from the east to the west, but the far slower single movements of the single planets travel in the opposite direction from west to east, it is therefore certain that these movements cannot depend on the common movement of the world but should be assigned to the planets themselves. ( Cohannes Depler, !pitomy of Copernican Astronomy 1B. 8eserves of coal in the Gnited 'tates have an energ$ e7uivalent II times that of oil and natural gas. /n a worldwide basis the multiple is about 14. B$ shifting to a coal6based econom$, we could satisf$ our energ$ re7uirements for at least a centur$, probabl$ longer. (.illiam ?. @asterson and *mil C. 'lowins&i, Principles of Chemistry J12. .hen the 8omans occupied *ngland, coal was burned. 'ince coal produces 7uite a bit of soot and sulfur dio%ide, there must have been da$s almost "444 $ears ago when the air in the larger towns was badl$ polluted. ('tanle$ >ed5elman, The Science and Wonders of the Atmosphere "4. The graphical method for solving a s$stem of e7uations is an appro%imation, since reading the point of intersection depends on the accurac$ with which the lines are drawn and on the abilit$ to interpret the coordinates of the point. (Darl C. 'mith and -atric& C. Bo$le, Intermediate Alge"ra for College Students "1. That 0the moons of Cupiter1 revolve in une7ual circles is manifestl$ deduced from the fact that at the longest elongation from Cupiter it is never possible to see two of these moons in con9unction, whereas in the vicinit$ of Cupiter the$ are found united two, three, and sometimes all four together. (>alileo >alilei, The Starry ,essenger

J"". ?enses function b$ refracting light at their surfaces. Fonse7uentl$, their action depends not onl$ on the shape of the lens surfaces, but also on the indices of refraction of the lens material and the surrounding medium. (:ran& C. Blatt, Principles of Physics, "nd edition "I. >iven present growth rates in underdeveloped countries, the limited practice of birth control, and the difficult$ of slowing the current growth momentum, it can be said with virtual certaint$ that none of the people now reading this boo& will ever live in a world where the population is not growing. ( C. Cohn -alen, Social Pro"lems "E. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. ! constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded b$ the 9udges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of an$ particular act proceeding from the legislative bod$. (!le%ander =amilton, 'ederalist Papers, No. +B J"A. The 'impson incident had shown me that a dog was &ept in the stables, and $et, though someone had been in and had fetched out a horse, he had not bar&ed enough to arouse the two lads in the loft. /bviousl$ the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog &new well. (!. Fonan ,o$le, ,emoirs of Sherloc0 %olmes "3. *ternit$ is simultaneousl$ whole. But time has a before and an after. Therefore time and eternit$ are not the same thing. (Thomas !7uinas, Summa Theologica "+. /rdinar$ things that we encounter ever$ da$ are electricall$ neutral. Therefore, since negativel$ charged electrons are a part of ever$thing, positivel$ charged particles must also e%ist in all matter. ( Cames *. Brad$ and >erard *. =umiston, .eneral Chemistry J"B. !nimals that live on plant foods must eat large 7uantities of vegetation, and this consumes much of their time. @eat eaters, b$ contrast, have no need to eat so much or so often. Fonse7uentl$, meat6eating hominines 0earl$ humans1 ma$ have had more leisure time available to e%plore and manipulate their environment; li&e lions and leopards, the$ would have time to spend l$ing around and pla$ing. (.illiam !. =aviland, Cultural Anthropology, Bth edition "2. 0-s$chologists1 .irtshafter and ,avis noted that the gl$cerol content of the

blood is related to the si5e of the fat cells 0in the bod$1. 'ince the si5e of the fat cells would indicate something about the amount of stored fats, increases in blood gl$cerol should indicate increases in bod$ weight. (=erbert ?. -etri, ,oti#ation1 Theory and )esearch, "nd edition I4. Because the moon moves relative to the earth so that it returns to the same position overhead after about "A hours, there are two high and two low tides at an$ point ever$ "A hours. (,ouglas F. >iancoli, The Ideas of Physics, Ird edition II. ,efine the following terms: deductive argument inductive argument argument based on mathematics argument from definition categorical s$llogism h$pothetical s$llogism dis9unctive s$llogism argument from analog$ inductive generali5ation prediction argument from authorit$ argument based on signs causal inference particular statement general statement III. !nswer ((true)) or ((false)) to the following statements: 1. In an inductive argument, it is intended that the conclusion contain more information than the premises. ". In a deductive argument, the conclusion is not supposed to contain more information than the premises. I. The form of argumentation the arguer uses ma$ allow one to determine whether an argument is inductive or deductive. E. The actual strength of the lin& between premises and conclusion ma$ allow one to determine whether an argument is inductive or deductive.

A. ! geometrical proof is an e%ample of an inductive argument. 3. @ost arguments based on statistical reasoning are deductive. +. If the conclusion of an argument follows merel$ from the definition of a word used in a premise, the argument is deductive. B. !n argument that draws a conclusion about a thing based on that thing)s similarit$ to something else is a deductive argument. 2. !n argument that draws a conclusion that something is true because someone has said that it is, is a deductive argument. 14. !n argument that presents two alternatives and eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion, is an inductive argument. 11. !n argument that proceeds from &nowledge of a cause to &nowledge of an effect is an inductive argument. 1". If an argument contains the phrase ((it definitel$ follows that,)) then we &now for certain that the argument is deductive. 1I. !n argument that predicts what will happen in the future, based upon what has happened in the past, is an inductive argument. 1E. Inductive arguments alwa$s proceed from the particular to the general. 1A. ,eductive arguments alwa$s proceed from the general to the particular. IL. -age through a boo&, maga5ine, or newspaper and find two arguments, one inductive and the other deductive. Fop$ the arguments as written, giving the appropriate reference. Then identif$ the premises and conclusion of each. %.- .alidity, /rut(, Soundness, Strengt(, "ogency This section introduces the central ideas and terminolog$ re7uired to evaluate arguments. .e have seen that ever$ argument ma&es two basic claims: a claim that evidence or reasons e%ist and a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support something (or that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons . The first is a factual claim, the second an inferential claim. The evaluation of ever$ argument centers on the evaluation of these two claims. The most important of the two is the inferential claim, because if the premises fail to support the conclusion (that is, if the reasoning is bad , an argument is worthless. Thus we will alwa$s test the inferential claim first, and onl$ if the premises do support the conclusion will we test the factual claim (that is, the claim that the premises present genuine evidence, or are true . The

material that follows considers first deductive arguments and then inductive. +eductive Arguments The previous section defined a deductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this wa$, the argument is said to be valid. Thus, a valid deductive argument is an argument such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In these arguments the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises. Fonversel$, an invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument such that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In invalid arguments the conclusion does not follow with strict necessit$ from the premises, even though it is claimed to. !n immediate conse7uence of these definitions is that there is no middle ground between valid and invalid. There are no arguments that are ((almost)) valid and ((almost)) invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. To test an argument for validit$ we begin b$ assuming that all premises are true, and then we determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption, for the conclusion to be false. =ere is an e%ample: !ll television networ&s are media companies. NBF is a television networ&. Therefore, NBF is a media compan$. In this argument both premises are actuall$ true, so it is eas$ to assume that the$ are true. Ne%t we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. Flearl$ this is not possible. If NBF is included in the group of television networ&s (second premise and if the group of television networ&s is included in the group of media companies (first premise , it necessaril$ follows that NBF is included in the group of media companies (conclusion . In other words, assuming the premises true and the conclusion false entails a strict contradiction. Thus the argument is valid. =ere is another e%ample: !ll automa&ers are computer manufacturers. Gnited !irlines is an automa&er. Therefore, Gnited !irlines is a computer manufacturer. In this argument, both premises are actuall$ false, but it is eas$ to assume that the$ are

true. *ver$ automa&er could have a corporate division that manufactures computers. !lso, in addition to fl$ing airplanes, Gnited !irlines could ma&e cars. Ne%t, in light of these assumptions, we determine if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. !gain, we see that this is not possible, b$ the same reasoning as the previous e%ample. !ssuming the premises true and the conclusion false entails a contradiction. Thus, the argument is valid. !nother e%ample: !ll ban&s are financial institutions. .ells :argo is a financial institution. Therefore, .ells :argo is a ban&. !s in the first e%ample, both premises of this argument are true, so it is eas$ to assume the$ are true. Ne%t we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In this case it is possible. If ban&s were included in one part of the group of financial institutions and .ells :argo were included in another part, then .ells :argo would not be a ban&. In other words, assuming the premises true and the conclusion false does not involve an$ contradiction, and so the argument is invalid. In addition to illustrating the basic idea of validit$, these e%amples suggest an important point about validit$ and truth. In general, validit$ is not something that is determined b$ the actual truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion. Both the NBF e%ample and the.ells :argo e%ample have actuall$ true premises and an actuall$ true conclusion, $et one is valid and the other invalid. The Gnited !irlines e%ample has actuall$ false premises and an actuall$ false conclusion, $et the argument is valid. 8ather, validit$ is something that is determined b$ the relationship between premises and conclusion. The 7uestion is not whether premises and conclusion are true or false, but whether the premises support the conclusion. In the e%amples of valid arguments the premises do support the conclusion, and in the invalid case the$ do not. Nevertheless, there is one arrangement of truth and falsit$ in the premises and conclusion that does determine the issue of validit$. !n$ deductive argument having actuall$ true premises and an actuall$ false conclusion is invalid. The reasoning behind this fact is fairl$ obvious. If the premises are actuall$ true and the conclusion is actuall$ false, then it certainl$ is possi"le for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Thus, b$ the definition of invalidit$, the argument is invalid. The idea that an$ deductive argument having actuall$ true premises and a false

conclusion is invalid ma$ be the most important point in all of deductive logic. The entire s$stem of deductive logic would be 7uite useless if it accepted as valid an$ inferential process b$ which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsit$ in the conclusion. Table 1.1 presents e%amples of deductive arguments that illustrate the various combinations of truth and falsit$ in the premises and conclusion. In the e%amples having false premises, both premises are false, but it is eas$ to construct other e%amples having onl$ one false premise. .hen e%amining this table, note that the onl$ combination of truth and falsit$ that does not allow for "oth valid and invalid arguments is !ll wines are beverages. Fhardonna$ is a wine. Therefore, chardonna$ is a beverage. 0sound1 !ll wines are beverages. Fhardonna$ is a beverage. Therefore, chardonna$ is a wine. (unsound /rue premises 0alse conclusion None e%ist !ll wines are beverages. >inger ale is a beverage. Therefore, ginger ale is a wine. 0unsound1 0alse premises /rue conclusion !ll wines are soft drin&s. >inger ale is a wine. Therefore, ginger ale is a

soft drin&. 0unsound1 !ll wines are whis&e$s. Fhardonna$ is a whis&e$. Therefore, chardonna$ is a wine. 0unsound1 0alse premises 0alse conclusion !ll wines are whis&e$s. >inger ale is a wine. Therefore, ginger ale is a whis&e$. 0unsound1 !ll wines are whis&e$s. >inger ale is a whis&e$. Therefore, ginger ale is a wine. 0unsound1 true premises and false conclusion. !s we have 9ust seen, an$ argument having this combination is necessaril$ invalid. The relationship between the validit$ of a deductive argument and the truth or falsit$ of its premises and conclusion, as illustrated in Table 1.1, is summari5ed as follows: Premises "onclusion .alidity TT:: T:T: < Invalid << ! sound argument is a deductive argument that is #alid and has all true premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the argument is unsound. Thus, an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both. Because a valid argument is one

such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that ever$ sound argument, b$ definition, will have a true conclusion as well. ! sound argument, therefore, is what is meant b$ a ((good)) deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term. 'ound argument Lalid argument !ll true premise QR In connection with this definition of soundness, a single proviso is re7uired: :or an argument to be unsound, the false premise or premises must actuall$ be needed to support the conclusion. !n argument with a conclusion that is validl$ supported b$ true premises but with a superfluous false premise would still be sound. !nalogous remar&s, incidentall$, e%tend to induction. !nductive Arguments 'ection 1.I defined an inductive argument as one in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a wa$ that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. If the premises do in fact support the conclusion in this wa$, the argument is said to be strong. Thus, a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument such that it is improbable that the premises be true and the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probabl$ from the premises. Fonversel$, a wea1 inductive argument is an inductive argument such that the conclusion does not follow probabl$ from the premises, even though it is claimed to. The procedure for testing the strength of inductive arguments runs parallel to the procedure for deduction. :irst we assume the premises are true, and then we determine whether, based on that assumption, the conclusion is probabl$ true. *%ample: !ll dinosaur bones discovered to this da$ have been at least A4 million $ears old. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t dinosaur bone to be found will be at least A4 million $ears old. In this argument the premise is actuall$ true, so it is eas$ to assume that it is true. Based on that assumption, the conclusion is probabl$ true, so the argument is strong.

=ere is another e%ample: !ll meteorites found to this da$ have contained gold. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t meteorite to be found will contain gold. The premise of this argument is actuall$ false. :ew, if an$, meteorites contain an$ gold. But if we assume the premise is true, then based on that assumption, the conclusion would probabl$ be true. Thus, the argument is strong. The ne%t e%ample is an argument from analog$: .hen a lighted match is slowl$ dun&ed into water, the flame is snuffed out. But gasoline is a li7uid, 9ust li&e water. Therefore, when a lighted match is slowl$ dun&ed into gasoline, the flame will be snuffed out. In this argument the premises are actuall$ true and the conclusion is probabl$ false. Thus, if we assume the premises are true, then, based on that assumption, it is not probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, the argument is wea&. !nother e%ample: ,uring the past fift$ $ears, inflation has consistentl$ reduced the value of the !merican dollar. Therefore, industrial productivit$ will probabl$ increase in the $ears ahead. In this argument, the premise is actuall$ true and the conclusion is probabl$ true in the actual world, but the probabilit$ of the conclusion is in no wa$ based on the assumption that the premise is true. Because there is no direct connection between inflation and increased industrial productivit$, the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion and it provides no probabilistic support for it. The conclusion is probabl$ true independentl$ of the premise. !s a result, the argument is wea&. This last e%ample illustrates an important distinction between strong inductive arguments and valid deductive arguments. !s we will see in later chapters, if the conclusion of a deductive argument is necessaril$ true independentl$ of the premises, the argument will still be considered valid. But if the conclusion of an inductive argument is probabl$ true independentl$ of the premises, the argument will be wea&. These four e%amples show that in general the strength or wea&ness of an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion, but from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion. The dinosaur argument has a true premise and probabl$ true conclusion, and the meteorite argument has a false premise and a probabl$ false conclusion; $et, both are strong because the premise of each provides probabilistic support for the conclusion. The industrial

productivit$ argument has a true premise and a probabl$ true conclusion, but the argument is wea& because the premise provides no probabilistic support for the conclusion. !nalogousl$ to the evaluation of deductive arguments, the onl$ arrangement of truth and falsit$ that establishes an$thing is true premises and probabl$ false conclusion (as in the lighted match argument . !n$ inductive argument having true premises and a probabl$ false conclusion is wea&. Table 1." presents the various possibilities of truth and falsit$ in the premises and conclusion of inductive arguments. Note that the onl$ arrangement of truth and falsit$ that is missing for strong arguments is true premises and probabl$ false conclusion. The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth or falsit$ of its premises and conclusion, as illustrated in Table 1.", is summari5ed as follows: Premises "onclusion Strengt( TT:: prob. T prob. : prob. T prob. : < .ea& << .alidity, /rut(, Soundness, Strengt(, "ogency -2 ' N ? /able %.& !nductive Arguments Strong 3ea1 /rue premise Probably true conclusion !ll previous !merican presidents

were men. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a man. 0cogent1 ! few !merican presidents were :ederalists. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a man. 0uncogent1 /rue premise Probably false conclusion None e%ist ! few !merican presidents were :ederalists. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a :ederalist. 0uncogent1 0alse premise Probably true conclusion !ll previous !merican presidents were television debaters. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a television debater. 0uncogent1 ! few !merican presidents were ?ibertarians.

Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a television debater. 0uncogent1 0alse premise Probably false conclusion !ll previous !merican presidents were women. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a woman. 0uncogent1 ! few !merican presidents were ?ibertarians. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t !merican president will be a ?ibertarian. 0uncogent1 Gnli&e the validit$ and invalidit$ of deductive arguments, the strength and wea&ness of inductive arguments admit of degrees. To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than improbable. In other words, the li&elihood that the conclusion is true must be more than A4 percent, and as the probabilit$ increases, the argument becomes stronger. :or this purpose, consider the following pair of arguments: This barrel contains 144 apples. Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore, probabl$ all 144 apples are ripe. This barrel contains 144 apples. *ight$ apples selected at random were found to be ripe. Therefore, probabl$ all 144 apples are ripe. The first argument is wea& and the second is strong. =owever, the first is not absolutel$

wea& nor the second absolutel$ strong. Both arguments would be strengthened or wea&ened b$ the random selection of a larger or smaller sample. :or e%ample, if the si5e of the sample in the second argument were reduced to +4 apples, the argument would be wea&ened. The incorporation of additional premises into an inductive argument will also generall$ tend to strengthen or wea&en it. :or e%ample, if the premise ((/ne unripe apple that had been found earlier was removed)) were added to either argument, the argument would be wea&ened. ! cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises4 if either condition is missing, the argument is uncogent. Thus, an uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is wea&, has one or more false premises, or both. ! cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant b$ a ((good)) inductive argument without 7ualification. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinel$ supported b$ true premises, it follows that the conclusion of ever$ cogent argument is probabl$ true. Fogent argument 'trong argument !ll true premises QR There is a difference, however, between sound and cogent arguments in regard to the true6premise re7uirement. In a sound argument it is onl$ necessar$ that the premises be true and nothing more. >iven such premises and good reasoning, a true conclusion is guaranteed. In a cogent argument, on the other hand, the premises must not onl$ be true, the$ must also not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the given evidence and entails a 7uite different conclusion. !s an illustration of this point, consider the following argument: 'wimming in the Faribbean is usuall$ lots of fun. Toda$ the water is warm, the surf is gentle, and on this beach there are no dangerous currents. Therefore, it would be fun to go swimming here now. If the premises reflect all the important factors, then the argument is cogent. But if the$ ignore the fact that several large dorsal fins are cutting through the water, then

obviousl$ the argument is not cogent. Thus, for cogenc$ the premises must not onl$ be true but also not overloo& some important factor that outweighs the given evidence and re7uires a different conclusion. In summar$, for both deductive and inductive arguments, two separate 7uestions need to be answered: (1 ,o the premises support the conclusion< (" !re all the premises true< To answer the first 7uestion we begin b$ assuming the premises to be true. Then, for deductive arguments we determine whether, in light of this assumption, it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. :or inductive arguments we determine whether it pro"a"ly follows that the conclusion is true. If it does, the argument is strong; if not, it is wea&. :or inductive arguments we &eep in mind the re7uirements that the premises actuall$ support the conclusion and that the$ not ignore important evidence. :inall$, if the argument is either valid or strong, we turn to the second 7uestion and determine whether the premises are actuall$ true. If all the premises are true, the argument is sound (in the case of deduction or cogent (in the case of induction . !ll invalid deductive arguments are unsound, and all wea& inductive arguments are uncogent. The various alternatives open to statements and arguments ma$ be diagrammed as follows. Note that in logic one never spea&s of an argument as being ((true)) or ((false,)) and one never spea&s of a statement as being ((valid,)) ((invalid,)) ((strong,)) or ((wea&.)) 'tatements True :alse ,eductive arguments Inductive arguments Lalid Invalid (all are unsound 'trong .ea& (all are uncogent 'ound Gnsound Fogent

Gncogent E$ER"!SE %.I. The following arguments are deductive. ,etermine whether each is valid or invalid, and note the relationship between $our answer and the truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion. :inall$, determine whether the argument is sound or unsound. J1. 'ince ,o"y +ic0 was written b$ 'ha&espeare, and ,o"y +ic0 is a science fiction novel, it follows that 'ha&espeare wrote a science fiction novel. ". 'ince ?ondon is north of -aris and south of *dinburgh, it follows that -aris is south of *dinburgh. I. If >eorge .ashington was beheaded, then >eorge .ashington died. >eorge .ashington died. Therefore, >eorge .ashington was beheaded. 4& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts JE. The longest river in 'outh !merica is the !ma5on, and the !ma5on flows through Bra5il. Therefore, the longest river in 'outh !frica flows through Bra5il. A. 'ince the 'panish !merican .ar occurred before the !merican Fivil.ar, and the !merican Fivil .ar occurred after the Dorean .ar, it follows that the 'panish !merican .ar occurred before the Dorean .ar. 3. The *mpire 'tate Building is taller than the 'tatue of ?ibert$, and the 'tatue of ?ibert$ is taller than the *iffel Tower. Therefore, the *mpire 'tate Building is taller than the *iffel Tower. J+. !ll leopards with lungs are carnivores. Therefore, all leopards are carnivores. B. Fhicago is a cit$ in @ichigan and @ichigan is part of the Gnited 'tates. Therefore, Fhicago is a cit$ in the Gnited 'tates. 2. If >alileo invented 7uantum mechanics, then he was familiar with ph$sics in the twentieth centur$. >alileo was not familiar with ph$sics in the twentieth centur$. Therefore, >alileo did not invent 7uantum mechanics. J14. *ver$ province in Fanada has e%actl$ one cit$ as its capital. Therefore, since there are thirt$ provinces in Fanada, there are thirt$ provincial capitals. 11. 'ince the ,epartment of ,efense Building in.ashington, ,.F. has the shape of a he%agon, it follows that it has seven sides. 1". 'ince.inston Fhurchill was *nglish, and.inston Fhurchill was a famous statesman, we ma$ conclude that at least one *nglishman was a famous statesman. J1I. 'ince some fruits are green, and some fruits are apples, it follows that some

fruits are green apples. 1E. !ll ph$sicians are individuals who have earned degrees in political science, and some law$ers are ph$sicians. Therefore, some law$ers are persons who have earned degrees in political science. 1A. The Gnited 'tates Fongress has more members than there are da$s in the $ear. Therefore, at least two members of Fongress have the same birthda$. II. The following arguments are inductive. ,etermine whether each is strong or wea&, and note the relationship between $our answer and the truth or falsit$ of the premise(s and conclusion. Then determine whether each argument is cogent or uncogent. J1. The grave mar&er at !rlington National Femeter$ sa$s that Cohn :. Denned$ is buried there. It must be the case that Denned$ reall$ is buried in that cemeter$. ". The ebb and flow of the tides has been occurring ever$ da$ for millions of $ears. But nothing lasts forever. Therefore, probabl$ the motion of the tides will die out within a few $ears. I. The vast ma9orit$ of 8ose Bowl games (in -asadena, F! have been pla$ed in free5ing cold weather. Therefore, probabl$ the ne%t 8ose Bowl game will be pla$ed in free5ing cold weather. JE. :ran&lin ,elano 8oosevelt said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Therefore, women have no reason to fear serial rapists. A. @ost famous movie stars are millionaires. ?eonardo ,i Faprio is a famous movie star. Therefore, probabl$ ,i Faprio is a millionaire. 3. Fonstructing the great p$ramid at >i5a re7uired lifting massive stone bloc&s to great heights. -robabl$ the ancient *g$ptians had some antigravit$ device to accomplish this feat. J+. -eople have been listening to roc& and roll music for over a hundred $ears. -robabl$ people will still be listening to it a $ear from now. B. -aleontologists have unearthed the fossili5ed bones of huge reptiles, which we have named dinosaurs. Tests indicate that these creatures roamed the earth more than A4 million $ears ago. Therefore, probabl$ dinosaurs reall$ did roam the earth at that time. 2. The ,eclaration of Independence sa$s that all men are endowed b$ their creator with certain unalienable rights. Therefore it probabl$ follows that a creator e%ists.

J14. Foca6Fola is an e%tremel$ popular soft drin&. Therefore, probabl$ someone, somewhere, is drin&ing a Fo&e right this minute. 11. *ver$ map of the Gnited 'tates shows that !labama is situated on the -acific coast. Therefore, !labama must be a western state. 1". .hen Neil !rmstrong landed on the moon, he left behind a gold plated 'chwinn bic$cle, which he used to ride around on the moon)s surface. -robabl$ that bic$cle is still up there on the moon. J1I. !frican !merican athlete Cerome Bettis is able to withstand tremendous impacts on the football field. =owever, Lenus .illiams, li&e Cerome Bettis, is a great !frican !merican athlete. Therefore, Lenus .illiams should be able to withstand tremendous impacts on the football field. 1E. Gnli&e mon&e$s, toda$)s humans have feet that are not suited for grasping ob9ects. Therefore, a thousand $ears from now, probabl$ humans will still have feet that are not suited for grasping ob9ects. 1A. ! random sample of twent$6five famous countr$ and western singers, including >arth Broo&s and ,oll$ -arton, revealed that ever$ single one of them studied music in !fghanistan. Therefore, probabl$ the ma9orit$ of famous countr$ and western singers studied in !fghanistan. III. ,etermine whether the following arguments are inductive or deductive. If an argument is inductive, determine whether it is strong or wea&. If it is deductive, determine whether it is valid or invalid. J1. 'ince !gatha is the mother of 8a7uel and the sister of Tom, it follows that Tom is the uncle of 8a7uel. ". .hen a coo& can)t recall the ingredients in a recipe, it is appropriate that she refresh her memor$ b$ consulting the recipe boo&. 'imilarl$, when a student can)t recall the answers during a final e%am, it is appropriate that she refresh her memor$ b$ consulting the te%tboo&. I. The sign on the highwa$ leading into ,enver, Folorado sa$s that the cit$)s elevation is A"B4 feet. It must be the case that ,enver is 1 mile high. JE. 'ince Fhristmas is alwa$s on a Thursda$, it follows that the da$ after Fhristmas is alwa$s a :rida$. A. This figure is a *uclidean triangle. Therefore, the sum of its angles is e7ual to two right angles. 3. B$ accident Daren ba&ed her brownies two hours longer than she should

have. Therefore, the$ have probabl$ been ruined. J+. !fter ta&ing ?',, !lice said she saw a fl$ing saucer land in the shopping center par&ing lot. 'ince !lice has a reputation for alwa$s telling the truth, we must conclude that a fl$ing saucer reall$ did land there. B. 'ince -h$llis is the cousin of ,enise, and ,enise is the cousin of =arriet, it follows necessaril$ that =arriet is the cousin of -h$llis. 2. The picnic scheduled in the par& for tomorrow will most li&el$ be cancelled. It)s been snowing for si% da$s straight. J14. Fircle ! has e%actl$ twice the diameter of circle B. :romthiswema$ conclude that circle ! has e%actl$ twice the area of circle B. 11. 8obert has lost consistentl$ at blac&9ac& ever$ da$ for the past several da$s. Therefore, it is ver$ li&el$ that he will win toda$. 1". 'ince Cohn loves Nanc$ and Nanc$ loves -eter, it follows necessaril$ that Cohn loves -eter. J1I. This cash register drawer contains over 144 coins. Three coins selected at random were found to have dates earlier than 12EA. Therefore, probabl$ all of the coins in the drawer have dates earlier than 12EA. 1E. The Capanese attac& on -earl =arbor happened in either 12E1 or 12A1. But it didn)t happen in 12E1. Therefore, it happened in 12A1. 1A. =arr$ will never be able to solve that difficult problem in advanced calculus in the limited time allowed. =e has never studied an$thing be$ond algebra, and in that he earned onl$ a FJ. J13. 'ince x J y J 14, and x J +, it follows that y J E. 1+. If acupuncture is hocus pocus, then acupuncture cannot relieve chronic pain. But acupuncture can relieve chronic pain. Therefore, acupuncture is not hocus pocus. 1B. If inflation heats up, then interest rates will rise. If interest rates rise, then bond prices will decline. Therefore, if inflation heats up, then bond prices will decline. J12. 'tatistics reveal that B3 percent of those who receive flu shots do not get the flu. Cac& received a flu shot one month ago. Therefore, he should be immune, even though the flu is going around now. "4. 'ince @ichael is a -isces, it necessaril$ follows that he was born in @arch. IL. ,efine the following terms:

valid argument invalid argument sound argument unsound argument strong argument wea& argument cogent argument uncogent argument L. !nswer ((true)) or ((false)) to the following statements: 1. 'ome arguments, while not completel$ valid, are almost valid. ". Inductive arguments admit of var$ing degrees of strength and wea&ness. I. Invalid deductive arguments are basicall$ the same as inductive arguments. E. If a deductive argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it is necessaril$ invalid. A. ! valid argument ma$ have a false premise and a false conclusion. 3. ! valid argument ma$ have a false premise and a true conclusion. +. ! sound argument ma$ be invalid. B. ! sound argument ma$ have a false conclusion. 2. ! strong argument ma$ have false premises and a probabl$ false conclusion. 14. ! strong argument ma$ have true premises and a probabl$ false conclusion. 11. ! cogent argument ma$ have a probabl$ false conclusion. 1". ! cogent argument must be inductivel$ strong. 1I. If an argument has true premises and a true conclusion, we &now that it is a perfectl$ good argument. 1E. ! statement ma$ legitimatel$ be spo&en of as ((valid)) or ((invalid.)) 1A. !n argument ma$ legitimatel$ be spo&en of as ((true)) or ((false.)) %.4 Argument 0orms) Proving !nvalidity The previous section showed that validit$ is determined b$ the truth of a deductive argument)s inferential claim. If the inferential claim is true, then the conclusion follows with strict necessit$ from the premises, and the argument is valid. :or such an argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This section shows that the truth of a deductive argument)s inferential claim (that is, the correctness of the argument)s reasoning is determined b$ the form of the

argument. In other words, validit$ is determined b$ form. :or these purposes, consider the following argument: !ll adlers are bob&ins. !ll bob&ins are croc&ers. Therefore, all adlers are croc&ers. Because the words ((adlers,)) ((bob&ins,)) and ((croc&ers)) are nonsensical, we do not &now whether an$ of the statements in this argument are true or false. ;et, we do &now that if we assume that the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. That is, if we assume that the adlers, whatever the$ might be, are included in the bob&ins and the bob&ins in the croc&ers, then we must accept the conclusion that the adlers are included in the croc&ers. !ccording to the definition of validit$, therefore, the argument is valid. This fact is important for understanding the nature of validit$ because it shows that the validit$ of an argument has nothing to do with its specific sub9ect matter. *ven though we &now nothing about adlers, bob&ins, and croc&ers, we still &now that the argument is valid. The validit$ of the argument arises from the wa$ the terms ((adlers,)) ((bob&ins,)) and ((croc&ers)) are arranged in the statements. If we represent these terms b$ their first letters, we obtain the following argument form..e use a line to separate the premises from the conclusion. !ll A are &. !ll & are C. !ll A are C. This is a valid argument form. Its validit$ rests purel$ upon the arrangement of the letters within the statements, and it has nothing to do with what the letters might stand for. In light of this fact, we can substitute an$ terms we choose in place of A, &, and C, and as long as we are consistent, we will obtain a valid argument. :or e%ample, we might substitute ((daisies)) for A, ((flowers)) for &, and ((plants)) for C and obtain the following valid argument: !ll daisies are flowers. !ll flowers are plants. Therefore, all daisies are plants. !n$ argument, such as this, that is produced b$ uniforml$ substituting terms or statements in place of the letters in an argument form is called a substitution instance of that form.

?et us turn now to the concept of invalidit$. Fonsider the following argument: !ll adlers are bob&ins. !ll croc&ers are bob&ins. Therefore, all adlers are croc&ers. !s with the previous argument, we do not &now whether the premises and conclusion of this argument are true or false. But if we assume that the premises are true, it is possi"le for the conclusion to be false. It might be the case, for e%ample, that the adlers ma&e up one part of the bob&ins, that the croc&ers ma&e up another part, and that the adlers and the croc&ers are completel$ separate from each other. In this case the premises would be true and the conclusion false. The argument is therefore invalid. If we represent the terms in this argument b$ their first letters, we obtain the following argument form: !ll A are &. !ll C are &. !ll A are C. This is an invalid form, and an$ argument that has this form is an invalid argument. !n argument is said to ha#e a certain form if it is a substitution instance of that form. In the case of invalid forms, we must add the proviso that an argument has an invalid form onl$ if it is not a substitution instance of an$ valid form.H The following argument is a substitution instance of the invalid form 9ust discussed and it is not a substitution instance of an$ valid form. Thus, the following argument has the invalid form 9ust discussed: !ll cats are animals. !ll dogs are animals. Therefore, all cats are dogs. HThe reason for this proviso is that some substitution instances of invalid forms are actuall$ valid. *%ample: !ll bachelors are persons. !ll unmarried men are persons. Therefore, all bachelors are unmarried men. This argument is a substitution instance of the invalid form discussed above, but the argument is valid because its conclusion is true b$ definition. =owever, because

((bachelors)) is e7uivalent in meaning to ((unmarried men,)) the argument is also a substitution instance of the valid form !ll A are &. !ll A are &. !ll A are A. Thus, b$ the stated proviso, the bachelors argument does not have the invalid form in 7uestion but rather has this valid form. The e%ercises in this boo& avoid e%amples of this sort, where the form of the argument is obscured b$ the meaning of the terms. Notice that this substitution instance has true premises and a false conclusion. It is therefore clearl$ invalid, and it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid. The reasoning behind this proof is as follows. The substitution instance is invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion. Therefore, the substitution instance has an invalid form. But the form of the substitution instance is identical to the form of the (second adler6bob&in argument. Therefore, the adler6bob&in argument is invalid. ! substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion is called a countere%ample, and the method we have 9ust used to prove the adler6bob&in argument invalid is called the countere ample met(od. The countere%ample method can be used to establish the invalidit$ of an$ invalid argument, but it cannot establish the validit$ of an$ valid argument. Thus, before the method is applied to an argument, the argument must be &nown or suspected to be invalid in the first place. The countere%ample method consists in isolating the form of the argument and then constructing a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. ?et us appl$ it to the following invalid categorical s$llogism: 'ince some emplo$ees are not social climbers and all vice6presidents are emplo$ees, we ma$ conclude that some vice6 presidents are not social climbers. This argument is invalid because the emplo$ees who are not social climbers might not be vice6presidents. !ccordingl$, we can pro#e the argument invalid b$ constructing a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. .e begin b$ isolating the form of the argument: 'ome ! are not S. !ll 5 are !. 'ome 5 are not S. Ne%t, we select three terms to substitute in place of the letters that will ma&e the premises true and the conclusion false. The following selection will wor&:

! J animals S J mammals 5 J dogs The resulting substitution instance is: 'ome animals are not mammals. !ll dogs are animals. Therefore, some dogs are not mammals. The substitution instance has true premises and a false conclusion and is therefore, b$ definition, invalid. 'ince it has the same form as the original argument, it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid. In appl$ing the countere%ample method to categorical s$llogisms, it is useful to &eep in mind the following set of terms: ((cats,)) ((dogs,)) ((mammals,)) ((fish,)) and ((animals.)) @ost invalid s$llogisms can be proven invalid b$ strategicall$ selecting three of these terms and using them to construct a countere%ample. Because ever$one agrees about these terms, ever$one will agree about the truth or falsit$ of the premises and conclusion of the countere%ample. !lso, in constructing the countere%ample, it often helps to begin with the conclusion. :irst, select two terms that $ield a false conclusion, and then select a third term that $ields true premises. !nother point to &eep in mind is that the word ((some)) in logic alwa$s means ((at least one.)) :or e%ample, the statement (('ome dogs are animals)) means ((!t least one dog is an animal))#which is true. !lso note that this statement does not impl$ that some dogs are not animals. Not all deductive arguments, of course, are categorical s$llogisms. Fonsider, for e%ample, the following h$pothetical s$llogism: If the government imposes import restrictions, the price of automobiles will rise. Therefore, since the government will not impose import restrictions, it follows that the price of automobiles will not rise. This argument is invalid because the price of automobiles might rise even though import restrictions are not imposed. It has the following form: If ., then P. Not .. Not P. This form differs from the previous one in that its letters stand for complete statements.

., for e%ample, stands for ((The government imposes import restrictions.)) If we ma&e the substitution . J !braham ?incoln committed suicide. P J !braham ?incoln is dead. we obtain the following substitution instance: If !braham ?incoln committed suicide, then !braham ?incoln is dead. !braham ?incoln did not commit suicide. Therefore, !braham ?incoln is not dead. 'ince the premises are true and the conclusion false, the substitution instance is clearl$ invalid. Thus, it constitutes proof that the original argument is invalid. .hen appl$ing the countere%ample method to an argument having a conditional statement as a premise (such as the one above , it is recommended that the statement substituted in place of the conditional statement e%press some &ind of necessar$ connection. In the ?incoln e%ample, the first premise asserts the necessar$ connection between suicide and death. There can be no doubt about the truth of such a statement. :urthermore, if it should turn out that the conclusion is a conditional statement, note that one sure wa$ of producing a false conditional statement is b$ 9oining a true antecedent with a false conse7uent. :or e%ample, the conditional statement ((If ?assie is a dog, then ?assie is a cat)) is clearl$ false. Being able to identif$ the form of an argument with ease re7uires a familiarit$ with the basic deductive argument forms. The first tas& consists in distinguishing the premises from the conclusion. !lwa$s write the premises first and the conclusion last. The second tas& involves distinguishing what we ma$ call ((form words)) from ((content words.)) To reduce an argument to its form, leave the form words as the$ are, and replace the content words with letters. :or categorical s$llogisms, the words ((all,)) ((no,)) ((some,)) ((are,)) and ((not)) are form words, and for h$pothetical s$llogisms the words ((if,)) ((then,)) and ((not)) are form words. !dditional form words for other t$pes of arguments are ((either,)) ((or,)) ((both,)) and ((and.)) :or various &inds of h$brid arguments, a more intuitive approach ma$ be needed. =ere is an e%ample: !ll movie stars are actors who are famous, because all movie stars who are famous are actors. If we replace ((movie stars,)) ((actors,)) and ((famous)) with the letters ,, A, and ', this argument has the following form:

!ll , who are ' are A. !ll , are A who are '. =ere is one possible substitution instance for this form: !ll humans who are fathers are men. Therefore, all humans are men who are fathers. Because the premise is true and the conclusion false, the argument is invalid. Gsing the countere%ample method to prove arguments invalid re7uires a little ingenuit$ because there is no rule that will automaticall$ produce the re7uired term or statement to be substituted. !n$ term or statement will wor&, of course, provided that it $ields a substitution instance that has premises that are indisputabl$ true and a conclusion that is indisputabl$ false. Ideall$, the truth value of these statements should be &nown to the average individual; otherwise, the substitution instance cannot be depended upon to prove an$thing. If, for e%ample, P in the earlier h$pothetical s$llogism had been replaced b$ the statement ((>eorge .ilson is dead,)) the substitution instance would be useless, because nobod$ &nows whether this statement is true or false. The countere%ample method is useful onl$ for proving invalidit$, because the onl$ arrangement of truth and falsit$ that proves an$thing is true premises and false conclusion. If a substitution instance is produced having true premises and a true conclusion, it does not prove that the argument is valid. :urthermore, the method is onl$ useful strength and wea&ness of inductive arguments is onl$ partiall$ dependent on the form of the argument. !ccordingl$, no method that relates e%clusivel$ to the form of an inductive argument can be used to prove the argument wea&. /ne final comment is needed regarding the form of an argument. It often happens that the form is not e%plicit and that ma&ing it e%plicit re7uires an anal$sis of the meaning of the language. @an$ of the arguments in *%ercise 1.E were of this sort. Fonsider the following e%ample: This figure is a s7uare. Therefore, this figure has four sides. The conclusion follows necessaril$ from the premise because ever$ s7uare, b$ definition, has four sides. To ma&e the form of the argument e%plicit, a premise must be

added stating this fact: This figure is a s7uare. !ll s7uares have four sides. Therefore, this figure has four sides. !s this e%ample illustrates, the statement at the beginning of this section that the validit$ of an argument is concerned not with the sub9ect matter but rather with the form of an argument needs 7ualification. .hen the form of an argument is immediatel$ clear, the sub9ect matter is irrelevant to the 7uestion of validit$. But when the form is not clear, the sub9ect matter ma$ have to be anal$5ed to determine what the form is. E$ER"!SE %.4 I. Gse the countere%ample method to prove the following categorical s$llogisms invalid. In doing so, follow the suggestions given in the te%t. J1. !ll gala%ies are structures that contain blac& holes in the center, so all gala%ies are 7uasars, since all 7uasars are structures that contain blac& holes in the center. ". 'ome evolutionists are not persons who believe in the Bible, for no creationists are evolutionists, and some persons who believe in the Bible are not creationists. I. No patents are measures that discourage research and development, and all patents are regulations that protect intellectual propert$. Thus, no measures that discourage research and development are regulations that protect intellectual propert$. 5& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts JE. 'ome farm wor&ers are not persons who are paid decent wages, because no illegal aliens are persons who are paid decent wages, and some illegal aliens are not farm wor&ers. A. 'ome politicians are persons who will stop at nothing to win an election, and no persons who will stop at nothing to win an election are true statesmen. =ence, no politicians are true statesmen. 3. !ll meticulousl$ constructed timepieces are true wor&s of art, for all 'wiss watches are true wor&s of art and all 'wiss watches are meticulousl$ constructed timepieces. J+. No patrons of fast6food restaurants are health food addicts. Fonse7uentl$, no

patrons of fast6food restaurants are connoisseurs of fine desserts, since no connoisseurs of fine desserts are health food addicts. B. 'ome to%ic dumps are sites that emit ha5ardous wastes, and some sites that emit ha5ardous wastes are undesirable places to live near. Thus, some to%ic dumps are undesirable places to live near. 2. !ll persons who assist others in suicide are persons guilt$ of murder. !ccordingl$, some individuals motivated b$ compassion are not persons guilt$ of murder, inasmuch as some persons who assist others in suicide are individuals motivated b$ compassion. J14. 'ome school boards are not groups that oppose values clarification because some school boards are not organi5ations with vision, and some groups that oppose values clarification are not organi5ations with vision. II. Gse the countere%ample method to prove each of the following arguments invalid. J1. If animal species are fi%ed and immutable, then evolution is a m$th. Therefore, evolution is not a m$th, since animal species are not fi%ed and immutable. ". If carbon dio%ide is present in the atmosphere, then plants have a source of carbon. =ence, since plants have a source of carbon, carbon dio%ide is present in the atmosphere. I. If gene splicing is successful, then disease6resistant livestoc& will be produced. If genetic defects can be eliminated, then disease6resistant livestoc& will be produced. Thus, if gene splicing is successful, then genetic defects can be eliminated. JE. If energ$ ta%es are increased, then either the deficit will be reduced or conservation will be ta&en seriousl$. If the deficit is reduced, then inflation will be chec&ed. Therefore, if energ$ ta%es are increased, then inflation will be chec&ed. E tended Arguments 5' ' N ? A. !ll homeless people who are panhandlers are destitute individuals. Therefore, all homeless people are destitute individuals.

3. 'ome diplomats are clever spies, since some diplomats are clever and some diplomats are spies. J+. !ll communit$ colleges with low tuition are either schools with large enrollments or institutions supported b$ ta%es. Therefore, all communit$ colleges are institutions supported b$ ta%es. B. !ll merchandisers that are retailers are businesses that are inventor$ rotators. Therefore, all merchandisers are inventor$ rotators. 2. !ll diabetes victims are either insulin ta&ers or glucose eliminators. 'ome diabetes victims are insulin ta&ers. Therefore, some diabetes victims are glucose eliminators. J14. !ll reverse mortgages that are :=! loans are either living standard enhancers or home e7uit$ depleters. !ll reverse mortgages are home e7uit$ depleters. Therefore, all :=! loans are living standard enhancers. %.5 E tended Arguments The logical anal$sis of e%tended arguments, such as those found in editorials, essa$s, and length$ letters to newspaper editors, involves numerous difficulties. 'uch arguments are often mi%ed together with fragments of reports, pieces of e%positor$ writing, illustrations, e%planations, and statements of opinion. -roper anal$sis involves weeding out the e%traneous material and isolating premises and conclusions. !nother problem stems from the fact that length$ arguments often involve comple% arrangements of subarguments that feed into the main argument in various wa$s. ,istinguishing one subargument from another is often a complicated tas&. !nd then there are some argumentative passages that involve completel$ separate strands of argumentation leading to separate conclusions. !gain, distinguishing the strands and assigning premises to the right conclusion not onl$ is problematic but often involves an element of creativit$ on the part of the anal$st. To facilitate the anal$sis of e%tended arguments, we will assign numerals to the various statements in the passage and use arrows to represent the inferential lin&s. *%ample: J1 The contamination of underground a7uifers represents a pollution problem of catastrophic proportions.J" =alf the nation)s drin&ing water, which comes from these a7uifers, is being poisoned b$ chemical wastes dumped into the soil for

generations. This argument is diagrammed as follows: J" J J1 The diagram sa$s that statement J" , the premise, supports statement J1 , the conclusion. In e%tended arguments we can identif$ two distinct patterns of argumentation, which we will name the vertical pattern and the hori5ontal pattern. The #ertical pattern consists of a series of arguments in which a conclusion of a logicall$ prior argument becomes a premise of a subse7uent argument. *%ample: J1 The selling of human organs, such as hearts, &idne$s, and corneas, should be outlawed.J" !llowing human organs to be sold will inevitabl$ lead to a situation in which onl$ the rich will be able to afford transplants. This is so becauseJI whenever something scarce is bought and sold as a commodit$, the price alwa$s goes up.JE The law of suppl$ and demand re7uires it. This argument is diagrammed as follows: .ertical pattern JE J JI J J" J J1 The diagram sa$s that statement J1 , which is the main conclusion, is supported b$J" , which in turn is supported b$ JI , which in turn is supported b$ JE . The hori$ontal pattern consists of a single argument in which two or more premises provide independent support for a single conclusion. If one of the premises were omitted, the other(s would continue to support the conclusion in the same wa$. *%ample: J1 The selling of human organs, such as hearts, &idne$s, and corneas, should be outlawed.J" If this practice is allowed to get a foothold, people in desperate financial

straits will start selling their own organs to pa$ their bills. !lternatel$,JI those with a criminal bent will ta&e to &illing health$ $oung people and selling their organs on the blac& mar&et.JE In the final anal$sis, the bu$ing and selling of human organs comes 9ust too close to the bu$ing and selling of life itself. The diagram for this argument is as follows: 6orizontal pattern J" JI JE J1 J J J This diagram sa$s that statementsJ" , JI , and JE supportJ1 independentl$. Two variations on the hori5ontal and vertical patterns occur when two or more premises support a conclusion con/ointly, and when one or more premises supports multiple conclusions. The first variation occurs when the premises depend on one another in such a wa$ that if one were omitted, the support that the others provide would be diminished or destro$ed. The following argument illustrates the occurrence of con9oint premises: J1 >etting poor people off the welfare rolls re7uires that we modif$ their behavior patterns.J" The vast ma9orit$ of people on welfare are high school dropouts, single parents, or people who abuse alcohol and drugs.JI These behavior patterns frustrate an$ desire poor people ma$ have to get a 9ob and improve their condition in life. 'tatementJ1 is the conclusion. Ta&en separatel$, statementsJ" andJI provide little or no support for J1 , but ta&en together the$ do provide support. That is, J" and JI support J1 con/ointly. This relationship between the premises is illustrated b$ the use of the brace in the following diagram: "on,oint premises J" JI J J J1

The ne%t e%ample illustrates the occurrence of a multiple conclusion: J1 ,ropping out of school and bearing children outside of marriage are two of the primar$ causes of povert$ in this countr$. Therefore,J" to eliminate povert$ we must offer incentives for people to get high school diplomas. !lso,JI we must find some wa$ to encourage people to get married before the$ start having children. In this passage statement J1 supports both J" and JI . 'ince no single argument can have more than one conclusion, the passage is correctl$ evaluated as consisting of two arguments. :or our purposes, however, we will treat it as if it were a single argument b$ 9oining the two conclusions with a brace: 7ultiple conclusion J1 J JJ " JI /ur s$mbolism is now sufficientl$ developed to anal$5e most arguments found in editorials and letters to the editor of newspapers and maga5ines. Fonsider the following argument, ta&en from a newspaper editorial: J1 >overnment mandates for 5ero6emission vehicles won)t wor& becauseJ" onl$ electric cars 7ualif$ as 5ero6emission vehicles, andJI electric cars won)t sell.JE The$ are too e%pensive,JA their range of operation is too limited, andJ3 recharging facilities are not generall$ available. (.illiam Fampbell, ((Technolog$ Is Not >ood *nough)) .e immediatel$ see that J1 is the main conclusion, and J" and JI support J1 con9ointl$. !lso, JE , JA , and J3 support JI independentl$. The argument pattern is as follows: JE JA J3 J" JI J1 J J J J J

The ne%t argument is ta&en from a letter to the editor: J1 8hinos in Den$a are threatened with e%tinction becauseJ" poachers are &illing them for their horn. 'inceJI the rhino has no natural predators,JE it does not need its horn to survive. ThusJA there should be an organi5ed program to capture rhinos in the wild and remove their horn.J3 'uch a program would eliminate the incentive of the poachers. (-amela F. .agner, ((8hino -oaching)) :irst we search for the final conclusion..e selectJA , because it is the ultimate point that the passage attempts to establish. Ne%t we surve$ the premise and conclusion indicators. :rom this, we see that J" supports J1 and JI supports JE . :inall$, we see thatJ1 ,JE , andJ3 supportJA . ;et these supporting statements depend on one another for their effect. Thus the$ support the final conclusion con9ointl$. The argument pattern is as follows: J" JI JJ J1 JE J3 J JA J The ne%t argument is ta&en from a maga5ine article: J1 '&ating is a wonderful form of e%ercise and rela%ation, butJ" toda$)s rollerbladers are a growing menace andJI something should be done to control them. JE 8ollerbladers are oblivious to traffic regulations asJA the$ bree5e through red lights andJ3 s&im down the wrong wa$ on one6wa$ streets.J+ The$ pose a threat to pedestrians becauseJB a collision can cause serious in9ur$.J2 8ollerbladers are even a ha5ard to shop&eepers asJ14 the$ 5oom through stores andJ11 damage merchandise. (Coan 'chmidt, ((=ell#/n .heels)) !fter reading the argument, we see that J1 is merel$ an introductor$ sentence, andJ" and JI together compose the main conclusion. !lso, JE , J+ , and J2 support the main conclusion independentl$, while JA and J3 support JE independentl$, JB supportsJ+ , and J14 and J11 supportJ2 independentl$. The diagram is as follows: JA J3 JB J14 J11 J

J J J J JE J+ J2 J" JI J J J J The ne%t argument is ta&en from the science column of a newspaper: J1 .e can e%pect small changes to occur in the length of our calendar $ear for an indefinite time to come.J" This is true for two reasons.JI :irst, the rotation of the earth e%hibits certain irregularities.JE !nd wh$ is this so<JA The rotation of an$ bod$ is affected b$ its distribution of mass, andJ3 the earth)s mass distribution is continuall$ sub9ect to change. :or e%ample,J+ earth7ua&es alter the location of the tectonic plates. !lso,JB the li7uid core of the earth sloshes as the earth turns, and J2 rainfall redistributes water from the oceans. The second reason is thatJ14 the motion of the tides causes a continual slowing down of earth)s rotation.J11 Tidal motion produces heat, andJ1" the loss of this heat removes energ$ from the s$stem. (Isaac !simov, ((!s the .orld Turns)) -reliminar$ anal$sis reveals that the final conclusion is J1 . !lso, J" tells us that the supporting statements are divided into two basic groups, but since J" does not add an$ support, we can leave it out of the diagram. In the first group, JA and J3 support JI con9ointl$, while J+ , JB , and J2 support J3 independentl$. JE will not appear in the diagram, because it serves merel$ as a premise indicator. In the second group, J11 and J1" supportJ14 con9ointl$. Thus the argument pattern is as follows: J+ JB J2 J J J JA J3 J11 J1" J J JJ

JI J14 J1 J J /ur last e%ample is ta&en from a letter to the editor of a newspaper: J1 Fommunit$ college districts save a great deal of mone$ b$ hiring untenured part6time instructors, butJ" the e%tensive use of these instructors is a disadvantage to the students.JI @ost part6time instructors are paid onl$ 34 percent of what a full6time teacher earns, and as a result,JE the$ are forced to teach five or si% courses 9ust to survive.JA This detracts from the opportunit$ to consult with students outside the classroom. To ma&e matters worse,J3 man$ part6timers are not even given office space. :urthermore,J+ the lower pa$ demorali5es the parttimer, andJB the lac& of tenure ma&es for constant financial insecurit$.J2 /bviousl$ these conditions render the instructor less receptive to student needs. ?astl$, becauseJ14 these part6timers are burning the candle from both ends,J11 the$ have no spare energ$ to improve their courses, andJ1" man$ lac& the enthusiasm to motivate their students. !s a result,J1I the educational process is impaired. (>ordon ,ossett et al., ((-art6Time Follege Instructors)) -reliminar$ anal$sis reveals that the main conclusion is not J1 but J" . !lso, we see three main reasons wh$ part6timers are a disadvantage to students: The$ have little opportunit$ to consult with students, the$ are less receptive to student needs, and the educational process is impaired b$ J11 and J1". In the first main branch, the indicator ((as a result)) shows that JI supports JE , and JE and J3 independentl$ support JA . In the second branch, J+ and JB independentl$ support J2 . In the third,J14 supports both J11 and J1" , which in turn supportJ1I independentl$. =ere is the argument pattern: JI J14 J J J JE J3 J+ JB J11 J1" J J J J

J J JA J2 J1I J" J J J E$ER"!SE %.5 I. The following arguments were abstracted from newspaper articles, editorials, and letters to the editor. Gse the method presented in this section to construct argument patterns. If a statement is redundant or pla$s no role in the argument, do not include it in the pattern. J1. J1 The conditions under which man$ food animals are raised are unhealth$ for humans. J" To &eep these animals alive, large 7uantities of drugs must be administered. JI These drugs remain in the animals) flesh and are passed on to the humans who eat it. (-hilip ,. /liver, ((.e Fan *at 8ibs and 'till Be =umane)) E tended Arguments 52 ' N ? ". J1 The development of carbon6embedded plastics, otherwise called ((composits,)) is an important new technolog$ because J" it holds the &e$ for new aircraft and spacecraft designs. This is so because JI these composits are not onl$ stronger than steel but lighter than aluminum. (Thomas =. @augh II, ((Fomposits#The ?ightweight Fhamps of !ircraft Industr$)) I. J1 =omewor& stifles the thrill of learning in the mind of the student. J" It instills an oppressive learn6or6else discipline. JI It 7uenches the desire for &nowledge and the love of truth. :or these reasons JE homewor& should never be assigned. (Folman @cFarth$, ((=omewor&)s T$rann$ =obbles -romising @inds)) JE. J1 .hen parents become old and destitute, the obligation of caring for them should be imposed on their children. J" Flearl$, children owe a debt to their parents. JI Their parents brought them into the world and cared for them

when the$ were unable to care for themselves. JE This debt could be appropriatel$ discharged b$ having grown children care for their parents. (>ar$ Cones, ((The 8esponsibilit$ of -arents)) A. J1 ,eciphering the human genetic code will be e%pensive, but J" it will certainl$ benefit the human race. JI =uman&ind is currentl$ afflicted with I444 inherited disorders, and JE &nowing the genetic code will pave the wa$ for cures. (8obert >illette, ((Three Billion ,ollar *ffort)) 3. J1 The rain forest of Bra5il produces o%$gen for the whole world, $et J" it $ields no monetar$ return to that countr$. >iven that JI the industriali5ed nations consume the most o%$gen, JE those nations ought to pa$ Bra5il an annual fee for the use of its rain forest. (,iane B. 8obinson, letter to the editor J+. J1 It appears that animals ma$ be able to predict earth7ua&es. J" -rior to a ma9or 7ua&e in Fhina, hundreds of sna&es suddenl$ appeared from hibernation and fro5e to death in the snow,JI fish were seen leaping from rivers and la&es, andJE cows and horses refused to enter barns. !lso,JA prior to a 7ua&e in :remont, Falifornia, a flood of callers reported strange behavior from their pets and domestic animals. (@ichael Bow&er, ((Fan !nimals 8eall$ -redict *arth7ua&es<)) B. J1 It is important toda$ that more of our college students stud$ 8ussian.J" In the $ears ahead, we will need to interact effectivel$ with the 8ussian people, soJI we must become familiar with their values and traditions. But this entails that JE we must learn to spea& the 8ussian language. ( Cames /. :reedman, ((/ur New Fultural Imperative)) 2. J1 8esearch leading to the development of a scram9et engine is worthwhile. J" Fommercial aircraft incorporating such an engine could cross the -acific in as little as two hours. JI This would relieve the fatigue of flights from 89 "(apter %) *asic "oncepts ew ;or& to To&$o. !lso, JE such an engine could power future orbiting spacecraft. (T. !. =eppenheimer, ((! -lane for 'pace)) J14. J1 ! worldwide ban on the sale of ivor$ is long overdue. J" .ithout it, the !frican elephant will become virtuall$ e%tinct b$ the $ear "444. JI Toda$,

poachers armed with !D6E+ automatic rifles &ill "444 elephants ever$ wee&, and JE onl$ 344,444 remain in the wild. (!llan Thornton, ((The Ivor$ Trail)) II. The following arguments were abstracted from the same sources as those in -art I of this e%ercise, but the$ are of graduall$ increasing difficult$. Gse the method presented in this section to construct argument patterns. If a statement is redundant or pla$s no role in the argument, do not include it in the pattern. J1. J1 @an$ people believe that the crime of briber$ cannot e%tend to campaign contributions. J" :rom a legal standpoint, however, countless campaign contributions are in fact bribes.JI ! bribe is an$thing of value or advantage given with the intent to unlawfull$ influence the person to whom it is given in his official capacit$. JE ! campaign contribution is certainl$ something of value or advantage. :urthermore, JA ever$ contribution from a lobb$ist or special interest group is given with the intent to influence voting, and J3 thousands of such contributions are made in ever$ important election. (,aniel =a$s ?owenstein, ((Fan Fandidates 8un for -olitical /ffice .ithout Ta&ing Bribes<)) ". J1 !merica)s farm polic$ desperatel$ needs revamping.J" 'event$6three cents of ever$ farm program dollar ends up in the poc&ets of the nation)s superfarmers. !s a result, JI the mid6si5ed famil$ farms are being s7uee5ed out of e%istence. !lso, JE our farm polic$ courts environmental disaster. JA :ederal subsidies encourage farmers to use enormous amounts of fertili5er and pesticides. J3 These chemicals percolate down through the soil and pollute limited groundwater. (/sha >ra$ ,avidson, ((8ise of !merica)s 8ural >hetto)) I. J1 'ociet$ values white lives more than blac& lives. This is clear from the fact that J" &illers of whites are much more li&el$ to be sentenced to death than &illers of blac&s. JI /f the 1+BB people currentl$ on death row, 1+1I were convicted of &illing a white person. ;et JE blac&s are si% times more li&el$ to be murder victims than whites are. JA In :lorida, no one has ever been e%ecuted for murdering a blac& person, but J3 do5ens have been e%ecuted for murdering white people. (-os Angeles Times editorial, ((,eath and 8ace)) JE. J1 -owerful new particle accelerators are important in high energ$ ph$sics,

and J" the$ are worth their cost because JI the$ will allow scientists to produce and capture significant 7uantities of M particles.JE M particles result from E tended Arguments 8% ' N ? the collision of positrons and electrons, andJA particle accelerators are needed to achieve significant numbers of these collisions. J3 M particles are thought to be the bearers of the wea& nuclear force, and J+ learning the nature of this force ma$ lead to the development of entirel$ new sources of energ$. (?ee ,$e, ((?inear Follider: Bold >amble in !tomic -h$sics)) A. J1 :or $ears our countr$ has been providing Capan unlimited access to our technolog$ while getting little in return. J" Furrentl$ +444 Capanese graduate students stud$ science and engineering in the G.'., JI while onl$ 1444 !mericans are engaged in similar studies in Capan. !lso, JE our government laboratories are open to the Capanese, but JA Capanese laboratories are not open to !mericans. J3 To remed$ this imbalance, Capan should subsidi5e our universities, and also J+ it should help defra$ the costs of our laboratories. (.illiam F. Norris, ((Technolog$ @ust Travel "6.a$ 'treet)) 3. J1 !ll men crave material success because J" it serves as an insurance polic$ against se%ual re9ection. This is true because JI women love men who are successful. JE Both men and women want power, and JA success is the form of power women feel most deprived of. Thus, J3 women tr$ to achieve it vicariousl$ through men. J+ !s the A6foot 36inch ,ustin =offman once put it, ((.hen I was in high school, women wouldn)t touch me with a 146foot pole. Now I can)t &eep them awa$ with a 146foot pole.)) (.arren :arrell, (('uccess 'tor$: :rom :rog to -rince)) J+. J1 Figarette consumption could be easil$ reduced b$ simpl$ outlawing tailormade cigarettes. J" The manufacture of tailor6made cigarettes to !merican standards is a high6tech industr$. JI It cannot be done in small illicit labs li&e the processing of -F-, cocaine or heroin.JE The availabilit$ of 7ualit$ tobacco for hand6rolling would discourage the development of an illegal tailor6made mar&et. JA @ost people would not pa$ the premium prices demanded b$ an illicit mar&et for a product of un&nown 7ualit$. J3 The$ could roll a high7ualit$

product for themselves. J+ Trul$ addicted persons would continue to smo&e no matter how inconvenient. But JB most would give it up as too much bother before it became a deepl$ ingrained habit. (8ichard 'and, ((!n *as$.a$ to 8educe Figarette Fonsumption)) B. J1 :lesh food is not a necessit$ in the human diet, asJ" nutritionall$ ade7uate alternatives are readil$ available. JI @an$ people in the world thrive on a nonmeat diet. JE Indeed, vegetarian 'eventh6,a$ !dventists in this countr$ live an average of si% $ears longer than their meat6eating counterparts.JA The National !cadem$ of 'cience warns that our fat6laden diet is directl$ responsible for much of the heart disease and cancer that afflict so man$. J3 !t a time when people are starving in certain parts of the world, it should be noted that a steer must consume si%teen pounds of grain and so$ to produce one pound of meat. J+ The grain and so$beans we feed our meat6producing 8& "(apter %) *asic "oncepts animals would feed ever$ hungr$ mouth in the world man$ times over. JB Fattle are competing with humans for food. J2 Flearl$, a reassessment of the whole concept of &illing and eating animals is in order. ('u5anne 'utton, ((Dilling !nimals for :ood#Time for a 'econd ?oo&)) 2. J1 The argument has been made that to cut down on teenage drun& driving we should increase the federal e%cise ta% on beer. J" 'uch a measure, however, would almost certainl$ fail to achieve its intended result.JI Teenagers are notoriousl$ insensitive to cost. JE The$ gladl$ accept premium prices for the latest st$le in clothes or the most popular record albums. !nd then, JA those who drin& and drive alread$ ris& arrest and loss of driving privileges.J3 The$ would not thin& twice about pa$ing a little more for a si%6pac&. :inall$,J+ the situation is not as blea& as it has been made to appear. JB The fatalit$ rate for teenage drivers is lower toda$ than it has been in $ears. ( Cames F. 'anders, ((Increased G.'. Ta% on Beer)) J14. J1 It has been widel$ ac&nowledged that the 7ualit$ of undergraduate education in this countr$ is diminishing. J" !n often unrecogni5ed cause of this malad$ is the e%ploitative wa$ that universities as emplo$ers treat their parttime and temporar$ facult$ members. JI In man$ universities there are no formal guidelines for evaluating the wor& of these instructors. !s a result,JE poor instructors who solicit the favor of the department chairman are often retained

over better ones who do not. JA !nother factor is the low pa$ given to these instructors. J3 In order to survive, man$ of them must accept heav$ teaching loads spread out over three or four institutions. J+ The 7ualit$ of instruction can onl$ suffer when facult$ members stretch themselves so thin. ?astl$, because JB part6time and temporar$ facult$ are rarel$ members of the facult$ senate,J2 the$ have no voice in universit$ governance. ButJ14 without a voice, the shodd$ conditions under which the$ wor& are never brought to light. (@ichael 'chwalbe, ((-art6Time :acult$ @embers ,eserve a Brea&)) 11. J1 ,octors who attend elderl$ people in nursing homes often prescribe tran7uili5ers to &eep these people immobile. J" This practice is often unwarranted, andJI it often impairs the health of the patients.JE These tran7uili5ers often have damaging side effects in that JA the$ accentuate the s$mptoms of senilit$, andJ3 the$ increase the li&elihood of a dangerous fall becauseJ+ the$ produce unsteadiness in wal&ing. :urthermore, since JB these medications produce immobilit$, J2 the$ increase the ris& of bedsores. J14 ,octors at the Fenter for !ging and =ealth sa$ that ph$sicians who care for the elderl$ are simpl$ prescribing too much medication. (=al .illard, ((!t 24, the Mombie 'huffle)) 1". J1 !ll of us have encountered motorists who will go to an$ length to get a par&ing spot within "4 feet of the door the$ e%pect to enter.J" This obsession with good par&ing spots transcends all logic. JI It might ta&e A minutes to E tended Arguments 8' ' N ? secure the ideal spot in a store par&ing lot, JE while a more distant spot that is immediatel$ available is onl$ a E46second wal& from the door. JA .aiting for that ideal spot also results in fren5ied nerves and s&$roc&eting blood pressure. J3 Inevitabl$ the occupant of the desired space will preen her hair before departing, and J+ all the while the cars bac&ed up behind the waiting driver are blaring their horns. JB -ar&ing a little farther awa$ is usuall$ easier and safer because J2 $ou can pull out more 7uic&l$, and J14 it avoids damage to car doors b$ ad9acent par&ers. (>winn /wens, ((! 8idiculous !ddiction))

J1I. J1 The state has a right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, andJ" this right should be implemented immediatel$. JI .hile it ma$ be true that a mere fetus has no rights, JE surel$ a born child does have rights, andJA these rights pro9ect bac&ward to the time it was in the womb. This is true because J3 what happens to the child in the womb can have an impact throughout the child)s life. J+ It is well &nown that alcohol and drug abuse b$ e%pectant mothers cause birth defects, and JB these defects are not correctable after birth. J2 >ranted, an e%pectant mother has the right to treat her own bod$ as she chooses, but J14 this right does not e%tend to her unborn child. J11 /nce a pregnant woman decides to give birth, she effectivel$ transfers part of her rights over to her unborn child. J1" Gnfortunatel$, however, the unborn child is incapable of securing these rights for itself. Thus, J1I the intervention of a higher power is 9ustified. (!lan ,ershowit5, ((,rawing the ?ine on -renatal 8ights)) 1E. J1 ! manned trip to @ars is a 9ustified scientific goal because J" it affords a uni7ue opportunit$ to e%plore the origins of the solar s$stem and the emergence of life. =owever, JI from a scientific standpoint, an initial landing on the tin$ @artian moons, -hobos and ,eimos, would be more rewarding than a landing on the planet itself. Because JE the @artian terrain is rugged, JA humans would not be able to venture far, J3 nor could the$ operate a robot vehicle without the use of a satellite, since J+ @ars)s mountains would bloc& their view. JB *%plorers on -hobos and ,eimos could easil$ send robot vehicles to the planet)s surface. J2 Gsing @ars)s moons as a base would also be better than unmanned e%ploration directed from the =ouston space center. BecauseJ14 the distance is so great, J11 radio signals to and from @ars can ta&e as long as an hour. Thus, J1" driving an unmanned rover from *arth, step b$ step, would be a time6consuming operation.J1I 'ample returns to *arth would ta&e months instead of hours, andJ1E follow6on missions would be $ears apart instead of da$s, further slowing the process of e%ploration. ('. :red 'inger, ((The Fase for >oing to @ars)) 1A. J1 There are lots of problems with the G.'. airline s$stem, but J" deregulation isn)t one of them. JI !irline deregulation has delivered most of what it 8- "(apter %) *asic "oncepts promised when enacted in 12+B. JE It has held down fares, JA increased

competition, J3 and raised the industr$)s efficienc$. J+ ,espite claims to the contrar$, airline safet$ has not suffered. !nd, JB with some e%ceptions, service to some cities and towns has improved. J2 /n average, fares are lower toda$ than in 12B4.J14 @orrison and.inston estimate that fares are "4S to I4S below what the$ would be under regulation. J11 Fompetition has increased because J1" prior to deregulation airlines had protected routes.J1I !fter deregulation this changed. J1E *fficienc$ has also improved. J1A !fter deregulation the percentage of occupied seats 9umped b$ 14S and miles traveled b$ I"S. J13 ,espite fears that airlines would cut unprofitable service to small communities, most smaller cities and towns e%perienced a "4S to I4S increase in flight fre7uenc$. ?astl$, J1+ travel on G.'. airlines remains among the safest forms of transportation. J1B Between 12+A and 12BA, deaths resulting from crashes totaled fewer than I444. (8obert C. 'amuelson, ((?et)s Not 8egulate the ,eregulated !irlines)) III. Turn to the editorial pages of a newspaper and select an editorial that contains an argument. Deep in mind that some editorials are reall$ reports and contain no arguments at all. !lso, few editorials are as neat and straightforward as the selections presented in parts I and II of this e%ercise. >uest editorials on the opinioneditorial page (usuall$ opposite the editorial page are often better written than those on the editorial page. !nal$5e the argument (or arguments according to the method presented in this section. Begin b$ placing a numeral at the beginning of each statement. Fompound statements having components that are claimed to be true ma$ be bro&en up into parts and the parts enumerated accordingl$. Numerals should usuall$ be placed after genuine premise and conclusion indicators even when the$ occur in the middle of a statement. ,o not, however, brea& up conditional statements into antecedent and conse7uent. -roceed to identif$ the main conclusion (or conclusions and determine how the other statements provide support. !n$ statement that does not pla$ a direct role in the argument should be left out of the final argument pattern. Summary ?ogic is the stud$ of the evaluation of arguments, which are lists of statements consisting of one or more premises and one conclusion. -remises can be distinguished from conclusion b$ the occurrence of indicator words (((hence,)) ((therefore,)) ((since,)) and

so on or an inferential relation among the statements. Because not all groups of statements are arguments, it is important to be able to distinguish arguments from nonarguments. This is done b$ attending to indicator words, the presence of an inferential relation among the statements, and t$pical &inds of nonarguments. T$pical nonE tended Arguments 84 ' N ? arguments include warnings, loosel$ associated statements, reports, e%positor$ passages, illustrations, conditional statements, and e%planations. !rguments are customaril$ divided into deductive and inductive. ,eductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow necessaril$ from the premises, while inductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is claimed to follow onl$ probabl$ from the premises. The two can be distinguished b$ attending to special indicator words (((it necessaril$ follows that,)) ((it probabl$ follows that,)) and so on , the actual strength of the inferential relation, and t$pical forms or st$les of deductive and inductive argumentation. T$pical deductive arguments include arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and categorical, h$pothetical, and dis9unctive s$llogisms. T$pical inductive arguments include predictions, arguments from analog$, generali5ations, arguments from authorit$, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences. The evaluation of arguments involves two steps: evaluating the lin& between premises and conclusion, and evaluating the truth of the premises. ,eductive arguments in which the conclusion actuall$ follows from the premises are said to be valid, and those that also have true premise are said to be sound. Inductive arguments in which the conclusion actuall$ follows from the premises are said to be strong, and those that also have true premises are said to be cogent. The terms ((true)) and ((false)) appl$ not to arguments, but to statements. The truth and falsit$ of premises and conclusion is onl$ indirectl$ related to validit$, but an$ deductive argument having true premises and false conclusion is invalid. The validit$ of a deductive argument is determined b$ the form of the argument. !n argument form that allows for a substitution instance having true premises and a

false conclusion is an invalid form, and an$ argument having that form is an invalid argument. This fact leads to the countere%ample method for proving invalidit$. The method consists in identif$ing the formof a given invalid argument and then constructing a countere%ample having premises that are indisputabl$ true and a conclusion that is indisputabl$ false. The structure of longer arguments ma$ be disclosed b$ the application of a method consisting of arrows and braces that show how the various premises support intermediate conclusions, and how the latter in turn support the main conclusion. :our basic argument patterns are the vertical pattern, hori5ontal pattern, con9oint premises, and multiple conclusion.