Topic X Identifying

Reasons and
3 Conclusions
LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this topic, you should be able to:
1. Determine if reasoning is present in an argument;
2. Identify words used in the language of reasoning;
3. Use the Thinking Map to analyse and evaluate arguments;
4. Apply tests to evaluate the validity and acceptability of claims; and
5. Identify assumptions and evaluate inferences in an argument.

X INTRODUCTION
Many a time we face situations where someone tries to convince us of a viewpoint
in the hope that we would accept it. This is often known as „arguing a case‰ or
„presenting an argument‰. Sometimes, the reasoning is simple to understand but
at other times it can be rather difficult. Likewise, when we present a case, at certain
times it can be easy for the other person to understand it and at other times it can
be difficult. We will explain the method to identify what reasoning is being
presented when someone is arguing a case and how to present reasoning in a clear
manner ourselves.

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 41

There are basic critical thinking skills we must practise if we want to excel at critical
thinking in real circumstances. You cannot assess a case presented in support of
some belief or decision unless you are very clear on what the case is.

3.1 DECIDING WHEN REASONING IS PRESENT

First of all, it must be realised that we use language for many purposes besides
trying to influence others of a standpoint. We use language for descriptive and
informative purposes, such as to report an event, describe things, tell stories, tell
jokes, make promises and many other things.

While language has an important role in conveying such information for the
purpose of this discourse, however, we are interested in how language is used in
reasoning. Reasoning is the process of making inferences from the information
given.

The following passages are provided to see if you can tell which contain reasoning
and which do not.

Scenario 1
James burst out of Customs, diamonds and expensive watches falling from his bag
as he ran. As he reached the taxi stand, customers were sitting in all of the waiting
taxis. James ran towards the nearest taxi and leaped into it as it was beginning to
move. He pointed a gun at the driver and said, „Downtown!‰ The taxi turned
towards the motorway. (Morton, 1988)

The above passage is simply a descriptive passage, and it does not provide reasons
for a conclusion, although we naturally make several inferences as we read it.

Scenario 2
Many substantial environmental problems cannot be solved by individual or local
action; for example, the pollution caused by automobile exhaust gases is a world-
wide problem, and so such problems can only be addressed by international
action.

Scenario 2 provides reasons for the conclusion that certain problems can only be
addressed by international action.

      
                    
 
42 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Scenario 3
The 19th century English theologian and biologist Gosse (1810 ă 1888) (Figure 3.1)
had a problem. He was a devout Christian who accepted the Creation story as set
out in the Bible, but he was also a practising scientist. He was well aware that the
geological and fossil studies by other scientists seemed to show that the Earth was
very old, perhaps millions of years old. How could he resolve this conflict?

Figure 3.1: Philip Henry Gosse

Source: http://www.parlouraquariums.org.uk/

Scenario 3 does not provide reasons for a conclusion. It only describes a possible
„solution‰ to a problem but there is no reasoning.

Thus, it is evident that at certain times, we use language to describe some state of
affairs, and at other times, we use it to reason and arrive at a conclusion. There are
also times when we use language to ridicule, insult or offend. Most articles in
newspapers report events but the leading articles and letters to the editor will often
contain reasoning in support of a conclusion. As for novels, they rarely contain
much reasoning. Textbooks, on the other hand, often seek both to pass on
information and to present the authorsÊ arguments. Finally, parliamentary debates
many a time contain reasoning as well as verbal abuse.

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 43

3.2 EXAMPLES OF REASONING

In order to understand reasoning, we shall thoroughly study the following
example. Let us imagine a student, Peter, who has just completed a critical thinking
course and has failed the test which was set at the end of the course. Let us imagine
that he sends this note to his teacher:

„That test was unfair. I studied for days, reading the material four times,
underlining important details and then studying them. After doing all
these I should obtain a good grade. That test was unfair.‰

From this note, it is clear that Peter argues that „the test was unfair‰ and this is
basically his conclusion. Notice that the conclusion in this example has been
provided at the beginning of a piece of reasoning and it comes again at the end of
the note, perhaps to strongly stress the complaint. You may also think that PeterÊs
conclusion is that the teacher should look again at the test or at PeterÊs answers, or
that PeterÊs answers should be regarded favourably by the teacher or by any other
teacher competent in this field. The main allegation is that something should be
done to rectify a mistake, and in this situation, it goes beyond what is actually said.
Thus, you might say that this is his conclusion. At times, people do not express, or
do not completely express, their conclusions.

Peter provided several reasons for his conclusion when he said, „I studied for days,
reading the material four times, underlining important details and then studying
them.‰ These are his reasons for coming up with the conclusion that the test was
unfair.

Among the lessons learned from the above example are:

(a) It is rather easy to see which reasons are presented for which conclusions. All
that is needed is an understanding of our normal use of the language.

(b) You now understand what the words „conclusion‰ and „reason‰ mean, in a
simple context as shown above. We use these words in their ordinary,
everyday sense.

(c) Conclusions can come at the beginning as well as the end of an argument,
and although they may be unexpressed, they may be „implied‰ by what is
mentioned.

(d) The task of judging whether an argument is good or not is rather difficult.
What is really required is an understanding of what is said, what is assumed
and what the context is.

      
                    
 
44 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

SELF-CHECK 3.1

1. Read the following passage which is adapted from a letter to an

American newspaper published a few years ago.

„We should bring most of our troops home from Europe. The threat
from Russia has gone now that the Evil Empire has collapsed; the
Europeans can defend themselves now that the threat to their
security is less and they are so rich; and we must reduce our federal
deficit fast, if our economy is not to collapse.‰
(a) What is the conclusion of this argument?
(b) What is the author trying to persuade us of?
(c) What reasons are given in support of the conclusion?
(d) Is anything assumed (something not actually stated in the
text)?
(e) Again, you might like to comment briefly on whether the
argument is a good one.

2. We need to make rail travel more attractive to travellers. There are

so many cars on the road that the environment and human safety
are under threat. Rail travel should be made cheaper. Everyone
wants the roads to be less crowded but they still want the
convenience of being able to travel by road themselves. People will
not abandon the car in favour of the train without some new
incentive.
(a) What is the conclusion of the argument?
(b) What is the author trying to persuade us of?
(c) What reasons are given in support of the conclusion?
(d) Is anything assumed (that is, implicit but not actually stated)?

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 45

3.3 LANGUAGE OF REASONING

There are several words and phrases that are normally used characteristically to
indicate that an individual is arguing a case or is presenting reasons for a
conclusion. Among the words or phrases used to show that the claim indicated is
a conclusion for which reasons have been presented are:

x therefore x justifies the belief/view that

x so x it can be concluded that

x hence x from which we can infer

x thus x it follows that/it demonstrates that

x consequently x must

x which proves/establishes that

However, it is not necessary that the utilisation of such phrases always indicate the
occurrence of a conclusion to an argument, just that it often does and that, taken
in concurrence with the context, such language often provides you with an
important clue about the structure of the reasoning. These phrases are commonly
called „conclusion indicators‰ because they signal the presence of a conclusion, for
which reasons have been presented.

In addition, there are also words or phrases that are commonly utilised to signal
the presence of reasons, and are usually known as „reason indicators‰. Among the
common reason indicators used are:

x because x the reasons are

x since x firstly

x for x secondly

x follows from the fact that

      
                    
 
46 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

When we intend to refer to both „conclusion indicators‰ and „reason indicators,‰

we commonly speak of „argument indicators,‰ which are signs that help us
understand whether a reasoning is present and what the authorÊs argument is.

SELF-CHECK 3.2

1. In the following examples, identify which words and phrases are

„argument indicators‰. Also, identify the sentences that indicate
reasons and its corresponding conclusions:

(a) During a football game, John Terry committed a serious foul,

so he deserved a sending off.

(b) The butler was in the pantry. In that case, he couldnÊt have
shot the master, who was in his study. Hence, the butler
couldnÊt have done it.

(c) The Green Movement is mistaken in thinking that we should

recycle materials like paper and glass because paper comes
from trees, an easily renewable resource, and glass is made
from sand, which is plentiful and cheap. Furthermore, in
some American cities recycling schemes have been abandoned
because they are too expensive.

2. In the following passage, state which of the words marked in bold

are reason indicators and which are conclusion indicators, and then
state which sentences are reasons and which are conclusions.
Finally, state the reasons you think are presented by the author in
support of the corresponding conclusions.

„Most parents want their children to have successful careers.

Since education is essential to success, it is the duty of parents
to give children the best possible education. Because it is also in
the countryÊs economic interest to have a highly educated
population, the Government should help parents to provide for
their childrenÊs education. Therefore, all parents should receive
financial help towards the cost of their childrenÊs education, so
the lowly paid should receive tax credits and those who are
better off should receive tax relief.‰

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 47

3.4 THINKING MAP FOR UNDERSTANDING

AND EVALUATING REASONING
So far, we have seen many different pieces of reasoning and explained how to best
understand and evaluate them. We have been looking at small pieces of reasoning,
pondering how to handle them and paying attention to some of the common
mistakes we commit in responding to reasoning. In the absence of such assistance,
most individuals tend to react by immediately challenging any claim they disagree
with or by presenting their own opinion without reflecting on the arguments
presented and so on.

The key to effective critical thinking is asking the right questions. We now present
a basic model or „thinking map‰ ă a tool that can help us evaluate reasoning as
seen in Table 3.1. Basically, the thinking map is a list of key questions you should
ask when analysing an argument ă be it your own or someone elseÊs.

Table 3.1: Thinking Map ă Skillful Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments

Analysis
1. What is/are the main conclusion(s)?
(May be stated or unstated; may be in the forms of recommendations, or
explanations and so on. The presence of conclusion indicator words such as
„therefore‰ may help.)
[Aim: It helps in organising your thinking about a piece of reasoning if you know
what the author is trying to persuade and/or convince you of]
2. What are the reasons (data, evidence, etc) and their structure?
3. What is assumed (that is, implicit or taken for granted, perhaps in the context)?
4. Clarify the meaning (by the terms, claims or arguments) which needs it.

      
                    
 
48 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation
5. Are the reasons acceptable to you?
(These include explicit reasons and unstated assumptions ă these may also involve
evaluating factual claims, definitions and value judgments and judging the
credibility of the source.)
(a) Does the reasoning support its conclusion(s)?
(For example, is the supporting argument strong as „beyond reasonable
doubt‰ or weak)?
(b) Are there other relevant considerations/arguments which strengthen or
weaken the case?
(You may already know these or may have to construct them)
[Aim: Also called critico-creative thinking, which requires us to consider any other
relevant ideas we know or can think up which will help us to arrive at a good
judgment for the case in hand].
6. What is your overall evaluation based on what you have obtained above?

The first set of questions is based on analysis. You cannot respond reasonably to
an argument without understanding it. Thus, the above given analytical questions
help you to understand what is being stated and argued. This is followed by the
evaluative questions, which will assist you in deciding whether or not you should
be convinced of the argument.

The Thinking Map should be used not only when you are considering other
peopleÊs reasoning but also when you are constructing your own. If you have a
good case, you should be able to organise it so that your readers or listeners will
be able to clearly understand what you are trying to state in terms of how you
carry it out. It helps to use the „language of reasoning‰ in order to make your
conclusion and reasoning clear and unambiguous.

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 49

SELF-CHECK 3.3

1. Sometimes, we may be led astray by flawed but persuasive

„reasoning‰. Consider the following:

Three friends had dinner at a restaurant. The bill came up to

RM25. Since RM25 is not easily divisible by 3, they decided to
put up RM10 each. They gave RM30 to the waiter, who
subsequently returned them RM5 change. From the change,
they took RM1 each, and tipped the waiter the remaining RM2.
So, for their dinner, they actually paid RM9 each (RM10 less the
RM1 returned).

Three times RM9 is RM27. The waiter took RM2. This adds up
to RM29. What happened to the remaining RM1?

Though it may not appear to be so, this is really a problem of logic

rather than arithmetic. You are led to the wrong conclusion that the
remaining RM1 cannot accounted for, because of flawed reasoning.
Where is the flaw in this reasoning? Can applying the Thinking
Map expose it? If so, please elaborate your answer.

2. For the following passages, use the thinking map to help you
analyse the argument (noting any important assumptions) and
write a brief evaluative response:

Big art exhibitions, which collect paintings from all over the
world, are bad for the paintings. Whenever they are
transported, there is a danger of accidents and resultant damage
or destruction, and it cannot be good to subject paintings to the
changes of pressure and humidity that even carefully controlled
travel is likely to bring.

The number of crimes committed by people under the age of 17

has almost doubled in the last seven years. The Criminal Justice
Act which becomes law this year should have the effect of
reversing this trend. Children who commit crimes know that
the penalties are minimal. But the new Act will make it possible
for parents to be made liable for fines and compensations, and
for them to be compelled to appear in court alongside offspring
who are under 17. The level of fines will be related to parental
income and wealthy parents may have to pay up to $5,000 for
their childrenÊs crime.

      
                    
 
50 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.5 ACCEPTABILITY OF REASONS

We have already looked at some techniques required to understand what authors
mean, especially in the process of reasoning. Next, we will continue with the
process of evaluating authorsÊ reasonings. This is vital because when someone
provides reasons which aim to persuade us to agree with a certain point of view,
we not only want to understand what they are saying but we may also be in a
position to evaluate their claims. In other words, we want to decide whether it is a
good reasoning and whether we should be persuaded by it. In order to do this
skillfully, we have to ask the right questions.

Generally, people commonly react in two ways towards a conclusion made by

another. If they agree with the conclusion, they say, „Yes, I agree with that,‰
without considering the details of the argument. If they disagree with it, they say,
„I do not agree with that,‰ and may say something against the conclusion, such as
denying it, rejecting the argument or providing a contradictory or opposing
argument. It is very uncommon for listeners to take the argument seriously and
analyse it for its validity. In order to obtain the truth about substantial issues, one
has to be systematic and skillful. We will look at how to go about this in more
detail here.

To set the context for our present work, let us look at an example, and use it to
explain the questions to be asked, and how they work:

In general context, most prospective parents would prefer to have sons. So

if people can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that there will
eventually be more males than females in our population. This could
produce serious social problems; therefore we should prohibit the use of
techniques which enable people to choose the sex of their children.

If we were to evaluate this systematically, we need to ask the following questions:

(a) Are the reasons acceptable (true, valid, factual, etc.)?

(b) Does the reasoning support its conclusion(s)?

(c) Are there other relevant considerations/arguments?

(d) What is your overall evaluation on this topic?

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 51

First, we have to decide whether it is true that „most prospective parents would
prefer to have sons.‰ Based on general knowledge, this claim may be true in some
societies and cultures across the world, for instance in India and China, but it may
be untrue in others. To find out, we need to carry out our research or look for
survey information on this matter to ascertain this statement.

The question that follows is: „Does this reasoning support its conclusion?‰ If it is
true that „most prospective parents would prefer to have sons,‰ then does it not
follow that if people can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that there will
eventually be more males than females in the population? If people prefer boys
and can get boys, does it not seem very likely that more boys than girls will be
born? It is definitely hard to see anything wrong with that inference of correlation.

The next reason is, „This could produce serious social problems,‰ and the question
is whether this claim is acceptable or not. It is not very easy to judge this reason
because it actually depends on whether there is a small or big surplus of boys in
society. Following this, the next question is, „Do the preceding claims support the
conclusion that we should prohibit the use of techniques which enable people to
choose the sex of their children?‰ Well, if allowing these techniques to be used does
produce a surplus of boys, which will in turn produce serious social problems,
maybe we should ban them.

However, there is another question that we should ask: „Are there other relevant
considerations or arguments in regards to this statement?‰ This is the point when
thinking about an issue requires us to be critical, creative and to think out-of-the-
box to arrive at the acceptance of an argument or claim.

Just why is this so important? It generally means, we have analysed the statement
constructively and are now more clear and ready to determine the validity and
credibility in support of a conclusion we can accept, and not only comprehend.

To summarise the above, once you are reasonably clear about what an author is
saying and what his reasons and conclusions are, you are in a position to evaluate
the reasoning.

ACTIVITY 3.1
State additional and further considerations and/or arguments that are
relevant to the question of banning the use of techniques for selecting the
sex of children.

      
                    
 
52 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.6 JUDGING ACCEPTABILITY OF A CLAIM

There are several questions to be asked on the acceptability of a claim, which
would then lead into considerations about credibility. In general, to skilfully judge
the acceptability of a claim, six steps are involved as outlined in Figure 3.2:

Figure 3.2: Six steps in evaluating the acceptability of a claim

Now, let us explore each step in the process of evaluation of acceptability in detail.

(a) How Certain is the Claim?

Whether a claim is acceptable or not depends on the strength of commitment.
A provided claim may well be acceptable as a „guess‰ or a „possibility‰,
however, its acceptability will be judged by more thorough standards if it is
presented as being true or even assured.

(b) Does the Context of the Claim Influence Its Acceptability?

Whether a claim is acceptable or not depends on the context and manner in
which it is made.

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 53

(c) Does the Claim Require Expertise/Research to Decide?

There are cases in which reasons provided for selective conclusions require
specialised knowledge or expertise input in determining whether they are
acceptable or not. Sometimes, you may have this knowledge and at other
times, you may not for it may not be your field of forte. Thus, wherever such
an expertise is needed, it may be challenging or even impossible for you to
judge the strength of an argument.

(d) Is it Widely Known or Believed?

There are times when a reason presented is widely recognised or believed.

(e) How Well does the Claim Fit with Our Other Beliefs and Opinions?
Sometimes, the reason you are reflecting upon „fits well‰ with other beliefs
you have and sometimes it does not.

(f) Is It from a Credible Source?

We can accept or reject a claim based on the credibility, reliability and
validity of its source.

SELF-CHECK 3.4
From the following passage, discuss the acceptability of the claims.

The huge Norwegian company called Norsk Hydro wants to grow more
fish in the sea by spreading fertilisers over the ocean. The company,
which is the worldÊs biggest producer of fertilisers, believes that this will
grow more marine algae, which in turn will encourage the expansion of
fish stocks. Marine scientists from Sweden and Canada who reviewed
the plan at the request of the Norwegian Research Council say it is
unlikely to work. They say it ignores basic principles of marine ecology
and could do irreversible damage.
[Adapted from „NorwayÊs fish plan ă a recipe for disaster,‰ New
Scientist, 13 January 1996]

      
                    
 
54 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.7 JUDGING CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES

Our beliefs and opinions are shaped by what we read in newspapers, what we see
on television or what we hear from the radio. When deciding whether or not to
believe a personÊs statement or a piece of information, these sources provide us
with some points of reference.

In this section, we will go through the criteria required to judge the credibility of
sources of claims. Among the criteria that we should pay close attention to are:

(a) The sourceÊs reputation for reliability;

(b) Whether the source has a vested interest;

(c) Whether there is corroboration or validation of the claim from independent

sources;

(d) Whether the source has the relevant expertise or training;

(e) The nature of the claim itself; and

(f) Whether the source can provide credible reasons for the claim they make.

To check the credibility of sources of claims, let us look into each question in
Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Five Criteria Required to Judge the Credibility of Sources of Claims

1. Questions on the person/source.

x Do they have relevant expertise/knowledge/training/experience?
x Do they have the capacity to observe accurately (includes all other abilities like
hearing, proximity to event, absence of distractions, appropriate machines, and
skill in handling machineries)?
x Does their reputation suggest they are dependable?
x Does the source have vested interest or show bias?
2. Questions on the circumstances/context in which the claim is made
3. Questions on the jurisdiction the source offers or can offer in support of the claim.
x Is the claim based on primary and secondary sources?
x Is the claim based on direct or on circumstantial evidence?
x Is the claim based on direct reference to credibility considerations?

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 55

4. Questions on the nature of the claim which influence its credibility.

x Is it very unlikely or is it easy to believe?
x Is it a basic observation statement or an inferred judgment?
5. Is there corroboration or validation from other sources?

In summary, we can categorise the above mentioned criteria into five sections
which contain questions pertaining to the:

(a) Person/source whose credibility we intend to judge;

(b) Circumstances/contexts in which the claim is made that affect its credibility;

(c) Justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim which
affects its credibility;

(d) Nature of the claim which influences its credibility; and

(e) Whether there is corroboration/validation from other sources.

SELF-CHECK 3.5

You are listening to a court case in which Jason, who collided with
another car, is accused of driving at twice the speed limit in the city and
with three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Jason denies the
charges but the doctor who attended to him tells the court that Jason
smelled very strongly of alcohol and blood tests showed alcohol in his
blood at three times the legal limit. Who is credible and why?

ACTIVITY 3.2
Think about several examples of people or "sources" (like the BBC or
TV3) you know and identify the areas in which they have a well-justified
reputation for reliability and areas in which they do not. Discuss with
your coursemates.

      
                    
 
56 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.8 EVALUATING INFERENCES

When we argue on a certain case, we present reasons to support our conclusion,
interpretation and decision. In other words, we infer our conclusion from our
reasons. Normally, arguments contain both reasons and inferences, and
„inferences‰ are the ones that we use in order to move on from reasons to
conclusions. This can be seen in the following example.

Some people have solved their own unemployment problem by either

looking for a job or by willingness to work for less. So all the unemployed
could do the same.

In the above example, the inference is the move from „some people have solved
their own unemployment problem‰ to „all the unemployed could do the same.‰
However, reasons and inferences have to be evaluated rather differently. In most
circumstances, it is important to judge whether the reasons provided in some
argument are true or otherwise acceptable. On the other hand, to judge whether
the inference based upon those reasons are justified or not is a totally different
thing.

Let us look at the following example.

WomenÊs brains are on average smaller than menÊs, therefore women are
less intelligent than men.

Most people, when asked, say that they are unsure of why the brains of women
are smaller than those of men but they are very sure that the conclusion presented
is not true. Although the reason is true, there is no connection between brain size
and intelligence, so the reason does not support the conclusion.

The first response points to the fact that we expect to be able to see some reasonably
established connection between reason and conclusion if one is to justify the other
ă a link we can perceive and accept in the light of everything else we believe.

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 57

The second says that if the reason is true but there are reasons for thinking the
conclusion could be false, it cannot be a good inference. However, since the second
response has received more support in the history of thinking about inferences,
that is the one we will choose here. Thus, the fundamental idea is that the reason(s)
do not make you accept the conclusion, and if you can think of other ways in which
the reasons can be proven to be true and the conclusion false concurrently, then
the inference is false. The test to apply when judging an inference is:

Could the reason(s) be true (or otherwise acceptable) and the conclusion
false (or otherwise unacceptable) at the same time?

If the answer to the above question is „No,‰ then the inference, which is the
progress from reasons to conclusion, is a brilliant idea and forces you accept the
conclusion if the reasons are true. On the other hand, if the answer is „Yes,‰ then
the inference fails, or is not justified.

In the example above, we face a situation where the reason is true but the inference
from reason to conclusion is unjustified. In other words, the inference is unjustified
because the reason could be true and the conclusion untrue at the same time. Thus,
it is clear that the attempt to decide whether an inference is justified is very
different from the tests you should apply when trying to decide whether reasons
are accepted.

If you have memorised the key points of this book, you will do well in the
critical thinking examination, and you have memorised them so you will
do well in the exam.

In the above example, the reasons are true, thus, the conclusion must also be true,
and this makes it a good inference. However, the reason which says that you only
have to memorise the facts in order to do well in the examination is definitely false.
Thus, this argument fails to justify its conclusion not because it makes a poor
inference, but due to the fact that at least one of the reasons on which it is based is
not true.

In summary, for an argument to succeed in justifying its conclusion it must meet

two important conditions:

(a) Its reasons must be true or otherwise acceptable; and

(b) The inferences which are then drawn from those reasons must be good ones.

      
                    
 
58 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

SELF-CHECK 3.6

Apply the test we have just explained to decide whether the inferences
you identified in the passages given below are justified.

(a) The job of a driving instructor is challenging and rewarding. One

has great freedom in working for oneself and it is unnecessary to
have passed any „A‰ levels. Therefore, a suitable job for anyone
without „A‰ levels is that of a driving instructor.

(b) If the worldÊs climate is getting warmer, we would find that some
of the ice at both the North and South Pole would melt at an
unusually high rate. If the ice is melting, we would see its effect in
raising the level of the sea. There is evidence that this level is
increasing, so the worldÊs climate must be getting warmer.

Next, we would like to introduce the „deductively valid‰ concept, the highest
standard of all for judging inference. Can you think of any way the reason(s) could
be true and the conclusion false? If the answer to that question is „No,‰ then the
inference is deductively valid, and if the answer is „Yes,‰ then the inference is not
deductively valid.

Hence, if an argument is deductively valid, the truth of its reasons absolutely

guarantees the truth of its conclusion; if the reasons are true, the conclusion must
be true, there are no other possibilities. A good example would be that if it is true
that „all whales are mammals‰ and „all mammals give birth to their young,‰ then
it must be true that „all whales give birth to their young.‰ There is no way that the
reasons can be true and the conclusion false. Thus, this is a deductively valid
argument.

      
                    
 
 TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS W 59

SELF-CHECK 3.7

1. Compare the following two syllogisms.

(a) All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

(b) All bird-watchers own binoculars.

Bob owns (a pair of) binoculars.
Therefore Bob is a bird-watcher.

What is the difference, if any, between the two? Do both

conclusions follow logically from their respective assertions? Are
both conclusions acceptable?

2. Judge which of the following arguments is deductively valid and

which is not. Explain in each case why you make your decision.

(a) Tom hates everyone Mary loves and Mary loves Tom. So Tom
must hate himself.

(b) The butler was in the pantry. In that case, he could not have
shot the master, who was in the study. So, the butler could
not have done it.

In most texts, it is rather easy to spot assumptions.

Driving instructor is a challenging and rewarding occupation. One has

great freedom in working for oneself, and it is unnecessary to have passed
any „A‰ levels. Therefore, a suitable job for anyone without „A‰ levels is
that of a driving instructor.

      
                    
 
60 X TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Anyone who reads the above passage would quickly assume that if a „challenging
and rewarding occupation with freedom to work for yourself‰ appeals to you, then
to be a driving instructor you require little more than to „have no A levels.‰ This
is called an implicit (hidden or unspoken) assumption. The inference made here is
rather weak because the reasons could be true but the conclusion false, judging by
any reasonable standard. Many a time, it is not so easy to tell what is being
assumed and in these circumstances, we proceed to elicit assumptions or
assumptions that are drawn out, especially when the quality of the inference is
important. Thus, the general strategy is that we should assign to arguments and
explanations those assumptions which:

(a) Seem likely in the context; or

(b) Make sense of what is said; or

(c) Seem necessary to make the reasoning as strong as possible (if true).

x A case presented cannot be assessed in support of some belief or decision

unless the individual is very clear on what the case is. One needs to identify
and ascertain reasons and conclusions made in the case.

x The language of reasoning uses various types of words and phrases, known as
„conclusion indicators‰, that indicate a conclusion is being made by the
particular claim.

x A thinking map used in the understanding and evaluating of a reasoning

includes a list of important questions such as:

 What are/is the main conclusion(s);

 What are the reasons and their structure;

 What is assumed;

 Clarifying what is required;

 Are the reasons acceptable or not; and

 What is the overall evaluation when the analysis of an argument is being

carried out.