1.4 Argument Structure and Evaluation

Arguments are the building blocks of logical reasoning. They consist of premises, conclusions, and inferences that connect them. Understanding argument structure helps us evaluate the strength and validity of claims.

Common argument forms like modus ponens and modus tollens provide frameworks for constructing sound arguments. By mastering these forms and avoiding fallacies, we can create well-structured arguments that effectively support our conclusions.

Argument Structure

Components of argument structure

Top images from around the web for Components of argument structure

• 

  Logic and Structure - Basic Reading and Writing View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Argument terminology used in logic (en).svg - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Logical Arguments | English Composition 1 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Logic and Structure - Basic Reading and Writing View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Argument terminology used in logic (en).svg - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Components of argument structure

• 

  Logic and Structure - Basic Reading and Writing View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Argument terminology used in logic (en).svg - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Logical Arguments | English Composition 1 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Logic and Structure - Basic Reading and Writing View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Argument terminology used in logic (en).svg - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Premises
  • Statements or assumptions that provide the basis for the argument
  • Can be stated explicitly or implied within the context
  • Serve as evidence or reasons to support the conclusion
• Conclusion
  • The main claim or assertion that the argument aims to prove or establish
  • Derived from the premises through logical reasoning
  • Represents the central point or takeaway of the argument
• Inference
  • The process of drawing a conclusion based on the premises
  • Establishes the logical connection and relationship between the premises and conclusion
  • Determines the strength, validity, and persuasiveness of the argument

Evaluation of argument strength

• Validity
  • Assesses whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises
  • In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
  • Focuses on the structure and form of the argument rather than the content
• Soundness
  • Evaluates both the validity of the argument and the truth of its premises
  • For an argument to be sound, it must be valid and have true premises
  • Considers the accuracy and reliability of the information presented
• Strength
  • Measures the degree to which the premises support and justify the conclusion
  • Strong arguments have premises that provide compelling and sufficient evidence
  • Weak arguments have premises that are insufficient, irrelevant, or unconvincing

Argument Forms

Common argument forms

• Modus Ponens
  • If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.
  • A valid form where affirming the antecedent (P) leads to affirming the consequent (Q)
  • Example: If it rains (P), the ground will be wet (Q). It is raining (P). Therefore, the ground is wet (Q).
• Modus Tollens
  • If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.
  • A valid form where denying the consequent (Q) leads to denying the antecedent (P)
  • Example: If the switch is on (P), the light will be on (Q). The light is not on (not Q). Therefore, the switch is not on (not P).
• Hypothetical Syllogism
  • If P, then Q. If Q, then R. Therefore, if P, then R.
  • A valid form that combines two conditional statements to form a new conditional statement
  • Example: If I study hard (P), I will pass the exam (Q). If I pass the exam (Q), I will graduate (R). Therefore, if I study hard (P), I will graduate (R).
• Disjunctive Syllogism
  • Either P or Q. Not P. Therefore, Q.
  • A valid form that eliminates one of the alternatives in a disjunction based on the negation of the other
  • Example: The car is either red (P) or blue (Q). The car is not red (not P). Therefore, the car is blue (Q).
• Affirming the Consequent (Fallacy)
  • If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.
  • An invalid form that incorrectly assumes the truth of the antecedent based on the truth of the consequent
  • Example: If it rains (P), the ground will be wet (Q). The ground is wet (Q). Therefore, it rained (P). (Fallacious reasoning, as the ground could be wet due to other reasons)
• Denying the Antecedent (Fallacy)
  • If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.
  • An invalid form that incorrectly denies the consequent based on the denial of the antecedent
  • Example: If I have a fever (P), I am sick (Q). I do not have a fever (not P). Therefore, I am not sick (not Q). (Fallacious reasoning, as one can be sick without having a fever)

Construction of well-structured arguments

1. Clearly identify the main claim or conclusion you want to establish
   • Ensure the conclusion is specific, relevant, and debatable
   • Example: "Public transportation should be free for all citizens"
2. Provide clear and relevant premises that support the conclusion
   • Ensure premises are factual, accurate, and reliable
   • Use evidence, examples, or logical reasoning to justify the premises
   • Example: "Free public transportation reduces traffic congestion and air pollution"
   • Example: "Access to free public transportation promotes social equity and mobility"
3. Use valid argument forms to structure your argument
   • Choose appropriate forms (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) based on the nature of your premises and conclusion
   • Avoid common fallacies and invalid argument forms that undermine the strength of your argument
4. Make the inference between premises and conclusion explicit
   • Clearly demonstrate how the conclusion logically follows from the premises
   • Use transitional phrases or logical connectors to show the relationship between ideas
   • Example: "Given that free public transportation reduces traffic congestion and promotes social equity, it follows that public transportation should be free for all citizens"
5. Consider potential counterarguments and address them if necessary
   • Anticipate objections or alternative perspectives to your argument
   • Provide additional premises or refute counterarguments to strengthen your position
   • Example: "While some may argue that free public transportation is costly, the long-term benefits to society and the environment outweigh the initial expenses"