Argument mapping Dr Sam Butchart Monash University 2019
Argument mapping Dr. Sam Butchart Monash University 2019
Definition of argument An argument consists of a claim, along with one or more reasons for thinking that the claim is true. The reasons given in support of the claim are called premises. The claim the premises are supposed to support is called the conclusion of the argument.
An example A claim Religious people tend to live longer and have healthier lives than people who are not religious. This is just a claim or assertion. It is not an argument.
An example An argument Religious people tend to live longer and have healthier lives than people who are not religious. Evidence for this comes from a study carried out in the US in 1998 which compared the health records of 50 people who attended church regularly with 50 people who did not. The study found that on average, the religious group lived an extra 5 years.
An example The conclusion Religious people tend to live longer and have healthier lives than people who are not religious. Evidence for this comes from a study carried out in the US in 1998 which compared the health records of 50 people who attended church regularly with 50 people who did not. The study found that on average, the religious group lived an extra 5 years.
An example The premises Religious people tend to live longer and have healthier lives than people who are not religious. Evidence for this comes from a study carried out in the US in 1998 which compared the health records of 50 people who attended church regularly with 50 people who did not. The study found that on average, the religious group lived an extra 5 years.
An example ‘Signposting’: a premise indicator phrase Religious people tend to live longer and have healthier lives than people who are not religious. Evidence for this comes from a study carried out in the US in 1998 which compared the health records of 50 people who attended church regularly with 50 people who did not. The study found that on average, the religious group lived an extra 5 years.
An example An outline of the argument in standard form 1. A study carried out in the US in 1998 compared the health records of 50 people who attended church regularly with 50 people who did not. 2. The study found that on average, the religious group lived an extra 5 years. Therefore: C. Religious people tend to live longer and have healthier lives than people who are not religious. (From 1 and 2)
Linked and independent premises Two ways in which premises can support a conclusion: Co-dependent or linked premises are premises that rely on each other to jointly support their conclusion. Independent premises are premises that support their conclusion without relying on each other. Each premise by itself provides some support for the conclusion.
Linked premises We have established that whoever the guilty person is, they must be left-handed. Miss Green is not left-handed, so she is not guilty. The premises are linked or codependent. Neither premise by itself gives us a reason to accept the conclusion. Both premises are required for the conclusion to follow. 1. Whoever the guilty person is, they must be left-handed. 2. Miss Green is not left-handed. Therefore: C. Miss Green is not guilty.
Linked premises We show that the premises are linked using an argument map. Also known as an a argument tree. Each box in the map represents a premise or conclusion. We use arrows leading from premises to conclusions to indicate the structure of the argument. 1. Whoever the guilty person is, they must be left-handed. 2. Miss Green is not left-handed. Therefore: C. Miss Green is not guilty. C 1 2
Linked premises We show that the premises are linked using an argument map. Also known as an a argument tree. Each box in the map represents a premise or conclusion. We use arrows leading from premises to conclusions to indicate the structure of the argument. 1. Whoever the guilty person is, they must be left-handed. 2. Miss Green is not left-handed. Therefore: C. Miss Green is not guilty. 1 2 C
Independent premises The government’s proposal to introduce a national identity card should be rejected for several reasons. Firstly, identity cards are of doubtful effectiveness in tackling identity fraud, crime and terrorism. Secondly, the cost of a national identity card system would be staggering and wasteful. Finally, there is widespread public opposition to ID cards. In this argument, the premises are independent. Each premise by itself gives us a reason to accept the conclusion. 1. Identity cards are of doubtful effectiveness in tackling identity fraud, crime and terrorism 2. The cost of a national identity card system would be staggering and wasteful. 3. There is widespread public opposition to ID cards. Therefore: C. The government’s proposal to introduce a national identity card should be rejected. C 1 2 3
There are several reasons why the speed limit should be reduced to 40 km/h in city centres. Firstly, this would reduce the amount of pollution in the cities. Secondly, lower speeds would make the streets safer for children and pedestrians. 1. Reducing the speed limit to 40 km/h in city centres would reduce the amount of pollution in the cities. 2. Reducing the speed limit to 40 km/h in city centres would make the streets safer for children and pedestrians. Therefore: C. The speed limit should be reduced to 40 km/h in city centres. Identify the structure of the argument: (A) One premise supporting a conclusion. (B) Two co-dependent premises supporting a conclusion. (C) Two independent premises supporting a conclusion. (D) Three independent premises supporting a conclusion.
There are several reasons why the speed limit should be reduced to 40 km/h in city centres. Firstly, this would reduce the amount of pollution in the cities. Secondly, lower speeds would make the streets safer for children and pedestrians. 1. Reducing the speed limit to 40 km/h in city centres would reduce the amount of pollution in the cities. 2. Reducing the speed limit to 40 km/h in city centres would make the streets safer for children and pedestrians. Therefore: C. The speed limit should be reduced to 40 km/h in city centres. Identify the structure of the argument: (A) One premise supporting a conclusion. (B) Two co-dependent premises supporting a conclusion. (C) Two independent premises supporting a conclusion. CORRECT (D) Three independent premises supporting a conclusion.
Exercises Exercise 1. Linked or independent?
Sub-arguments Arguers often try to support some of their premises with further argument. We call that a sub-argument. A sub-argument is an argument for a premise in an argument. The premise which the sub-argument is intended to support is called a sub-conclusion or intermediate conclusion.
Sub-arguments Several carefully conducted studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reached age 50 without developing serious heart disease. We can conclude from this that avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease. Therefore, people who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat.
Sub-arguments Several carefully conducted studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reached age 50 without developing serious heart disease. We can conclude from this that avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease. Therefore, people who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat.
Sub-arguments Several carefully conducted studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reached age 50 without developing serious heart disease. We can conclude from this that avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease. Therefore, people who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat. 1. Several carefully conducted studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reached age 50 without developing serious heart disease. Therefore: 2. Avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease. Therefore C. People who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat. C 2 1
Sub-arguments Several carefully conducted studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reached age 50 without developing serious heart disease. We can conclude from this that avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease. Therefore, people who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat. 1. Several carefully conducted studies have shown that 75% of strict vegetarians reached age 50 without developing serious heart disease. Therefore: 2. Avoiding meat increases one's chances of avoiding serious heart disease. Therefore C. People who want to reduce the risk of serious heart disease should not eat meat. 1 2 C
Sub-arguments A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. A computer cannot deliberately break rules because it has no freedom of action.
Sub-arguments A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. A computer cannot deliberately break rules because it has no freedom of action. The main argument 1. A computer cannot deliberately break rules. 2. Cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat in a game.
Sub-arguments A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. A computer cannot deliberately break rules because it has no freedom of action. 3. A computer has no freedom of action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately break rules. (From 3) 2. Cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. Therefore: C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. C 1 3 2
Sub-arguments A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. A computer cannot deliberately break rules because it has no freedom of action. 3. A computer has no freedom of action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately break rules. (From 3) 2. Cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win. Therefore: C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. 3 1 2 C
3. A computer has no freedom of action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately 3 2. Cheating means deliberately 1 break rules. breaking rules in order to win. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. 2 C
3. A computer has no freedom of action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately 3 2. Cheating means deliberately 1 break rules. breaking rules in order to win. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. 2 C Main argument
3. A computer has no freedom of Sub-argument action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately 3 2. Cheating means deliberately 1 break rules. breaking rules in order to win. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. 2 C
3. A computer has no freedom of action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately 3 2. Cheating means deliberately 1 break rules. breaking rules in order to win. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. 2 C Sub-conclusion
3. A computer has no freedom of action. Therefore: 1. A computer cannot deliberately 3 2. Cheating means deliberately 1 break rules. breaking rules in order to win. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat in a game. 2 C Main conclusion
Exercises Construct argument map diagrams for the arguments on the handout.
- Slides: 31