Glossary

1.4 Argument Structure and Evaluation

4 min read•july 22, 2024

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 of claims.

Common argument forms like and 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?

  • Logical Arguments | English Composition 1 View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Logic and Structure - Basic Reading and Writing 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?

  • Logical Arguments | English Composition 1 View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Logic and Structure - Basic Reading and Writing 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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 (Q)
    • Example: If it rains (P), the ground will be wet (Q). It is raining (P). Therefore, the ground is wet (Q).
    • If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.
    • A valid form where denying the consequent (Q) leads to (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).
    • 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).
    • 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"

Key Terms to Review (27)

Ad hominem: Ad hominem is a type of logical fallacy where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or motive of the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. This tactic often distracts from the real issue and can undermine constructive discourse, making it essential to recognize in discussions of reasoning and logic.
Adequacy: Adequacy refers to the quality of being sufficient or satisfactory for a particular purpose, especially in terms of providing enough support for a conclusion in an argument. In the context of argument evaluation, it emphasizes whether the premises offered are enough to convincingly support the conclusion drawn. This concept is crucial as it helps in assessing whether arguments are constructed effectively and whether they meet logical standards.
Affirming the Consequent: Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument asserts that if a certain condition is true, then a particular outcome must also be true, and concludes that the condition must indeed be true because the outcome is observed. This reasoning is flawed as it overlooks other possible causes for the outcome. Understanding this fallacy is crucial when evaluating the validity of arguments, recognizing sound reasoning, and distinguishing between different types of inference.
Argument diagramming: Argument diagramming is a visual representation of the structure and components of an argument, illustrating the relationships between premises and conclusions. This method helps in clarifying the logical connections within an argument, making it easier to evaluate its validity and soundness. By breaking down complex arguments into simpler visual forms, argument diagramming enhances understanding and analysis.
Argument form: Argument form refers to the structured layout of an argument that highlights its logical components, such as premises and conclusions, irrespective of the content. This structure allows for the assessment of the argument's validity by examining whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Recognizing different argument forms is crucial for evaluating arguments systematically and understanding how inferences are drawn.
Aristotle: Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher whose work laid the foundation for much of Western philosophy and logic. He developed a systematic approach to understanding reasoning, categorization, and scientific inquiry, which continues to influence various fields including mathematics, ethics, and natural sciences.
Categorical syllogism: A categorical syllogism is a logical argument that consists of three parts: two premises and a conclusion, where each part is a categorical statement. It uses quantifiers like 'all,' 'some,' or 'none' to link subjects and predicates, allowing for the examination of relationships between different categories. Understanding categorical syllogisms helps to assess validity and soundness, as well as the overall structure and evaluation of arguments.
Cognitive bias: Cognitive bias refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, where individuals create their own 'subjective reality' from their perception of the input. These biases influence how we process information, make decisions, and evaluate arguments, often leading to flawed reasoning and errors in judgment.
Conclusion: A conclusion is the statement that follows logically from the premises of an argument, representing the claim or assertion being supported. It is essential in determining the overall validity of an argument as it provides the outcome that the premises aim to support or prove.
Counterargument: A counterargument is an argument that opposes or challenges a particular claim or position. It is essential in evaluating the strength of an argument, as it helps to address potential objections and demonstrate the robustness of one's reasoning. By considering counterarguments, one can refine their own argument and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
David Hume: David Hume was an 18th-century Scottish philosopher known for his influential work in empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. His ideas have significantly shaped the landscape of philosophy, particularly in the realms of knowledge, causation, and human understanding, connecting deeply with the evaluation of arguments and the structure they embody.
Deductive Argument: A deductive argument is a form of reasoning where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This type of argument is characterized by its structure, which is designed to provide conclusive support for the conclusion. Understanding deductive arguments involves analyzing their validity and soundness, which play a crucial role in evaluating the strength of the reasoning presented.
Denying the Antecedent: Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy in deductive reasoning where one assumes that if a conditional statement is true, then negating its antecedent means the consequent must also be false. This logical misstep occurs when one infers that a negative outcome follows from a negative premise, leading to invalid conclusions. Understanding this concept is essential for evaluating argument structure and identifying fallacies in reasoning.
Disjunctive Syllogism: Disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form that states if one has a disjunction (an 'or' statement) and one of the disjuncts (parts of the 'or' statement) is false, then the other disjunct must be true. This logical principle is crucial for making valid deductions in reasoning, allowing for conclusions to be drawn from given premises involving alternatives.
Fallacy of composition: The fallacy of composition is a logical error that occurs when it is assumed that what is true for a part must also be true for the whole. This fallacy can lead to incorrect conclusions in arguments because the properties or characteristics of individual components do not necessarily apply to the entire group or system. Recognizing this fallacy is essential for evaluating the soundness of arguments and understanding the limitations of inductive reasoning.
Hypothetical syllogism: Hypothetical syllogism is a logical rule that allows one to derive a conclusion from two conditional statements when the consequent of the first condition matches the antecedent of the second. This form of reasoning is crucial in constructing arguments, as it enables one to combine premises into a single conclusion. It highlights the connections between premises and conclusions, supporting effective argumentation and reasoning in both direct and indirect proofs.
Inductive Argument: An inductive argument is a type of reasoning that draws generalized conclusions based on specific observations or evidence. This form of reasoning is often used to make predictions or formulate hypotheses, where the conclusion is probable but not guaranteed. Inductive arguments emphasize the strength of evidence and can lead to conclusions that are open to revision as new information becomes available.
Inference: Inference is the process of drawing conclusions based on premises or evidence. It connects premises and conclusions by allowing us to derive logical outcomes from the information given, making it a fundamental aspect of reasoning and argumentation.
Modus ponens: Modus ponens is a fundamental rule of inference in propositional logic that states if a conditional statement is true and its antecedent is true, then the consequent must also be true. This logical form is vital for constructing valid arguments and making sound conclusions based on given premises.
Modus Tollens: Modus Tollens is a fundamental rule of logic that allows one to infer the negation of a premise from the negation of the consequent in a conditional statement. If we have a conditional statement in the form 'If P, then Q' and we know that Q is false, we can conclude that P must also be false. This principle plays a crucial role in logical reasoning, proof construction, and evaluating arguments.
Modus tollens: Modus tollens is a valid form of deductive reasoning that states if a conditional statement is accepted, and the consequent is false, then the antecedent must also be false. This logical structure is important for analyzing arguments and assessing their validity, especially when dealing with implications in various forms of reasoning.
Premise: A premise is a statement or proposition that provides the foundational support for a conclusion in an argument. It serves as a building block for reasoning, as conclusions are drawn based on the truth or acceptance of one or more premises. In various contexts, premises help in evaluating arguments, testing validity, translating language into logic, and structuring reasoning methods.
Rebuttal: A rebuttal is a response to an argument or claim, aimed at contradicting or countering the original assertion. It serves as a critical part of argumentative discourse, where one party addresses the points made by another to demonstrate flaws, weaknesses, or alternative perspectives. By providing a rebuttal, the responder engages in a dialogue that can either strengthen their position or expose weaknesses in the opposing argument.
Relevance: Relevance refers to the importance and applicability of information or evidence in supporting a claim or argument. It plays a crucial role in determining how well the premises of an argument support its conclusion, influencing the overall effectiveness of argumentation.
Soundness: Soundness is a property of arguments in formal logic indicating that an argument is not only valid, but also has all true premises, which guarantees the truth of its conclusion. This means that sound arguments are both logically correct and factually accurate, connecting the logical structure of arguments to their real-world implications.
Straw Man: A straw man is a common form of argument where someone misrepresents or oversimplifies an opponent's position to make it easier to attack or refute. This tactic avoids addressing the actual argument and instead focuses on a distorted version, leading to faulty conclusions and ineffective debate. Understanding how this tactic works is crucial for analyzing arguments, evaluating their structure, and recognizing weaknesses in ethical reasoning.
Validity: Validity refers to the property of an argument wherein if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This concept is crucial in assessing the strength of arguments, as it determines whether an argument logically follows from its premises, linking directly to methods of analysis and various logical tools.
© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.
Back
Practice QuizGlossary
Practice QuizGlossary
Next guide