|
Chapter Five: (Re)constructing
Arguments
=Applications=
I. Introduction
In the theoretical part of this chapter, I describe the process of argument (re)construction. The process is
more or less the same whether you are constructing an argument in support of your own
conclusion, or reconstructing the argumentation of another. The differences boil down to
differences in access and control—you have greater access to the intent behind an
argument and greater control over the process of argumentation when you are constructing
it than when you must react and reconstruct. When you work to (re)construct an argument,
you must decide what explicit claims are relevant and then determine what relevant claims
are left implicit. This is done in parallel, moving back and forth over a single topic or
text until the argument lies bare before you. It can then be represented in standard form,
a form that is designed to expose the structure of the argumentation.
Below, I supply some suggestions concerning the teaching of argument
reconstruction, as well as illustrations of the arguments identified in Chapter
4.
II. Teaching Points
- Beware the strawman. It is altogether too easy for people
to dismiss an argument without doing it justice, especially if they
disagree with its conclusion. Disagreement with the conclusion
colors their opinion of the reasons proffered, and the entire argument is
either dispatched or ignored without a second thought. This is not
effective critical thinking, however. Effective critical thinking is
critical thinking that can generate results, and the dismissive approach
to argumentative dialogue is antithetical to real results. This is
due primarily to the fact that uncharitable treatment of an argument will
not impress the arguer and will certainly not convince them to see the
error of their ways or the wisdom of the critic's ways. Granted,
there may be some contexts in which the goal is to pump up the spirits of
the choir, so to speak, in which case creating common ground with those on
the other side of the argument is not a priority. In most cases,
though, common ground is a good thing, as it gains the approval of the
arguer on the other side and promises to push the dialogue toward some
meaningful resolution. In a classroom where arguments are a focus,
it is likely that your more argumentative students will not act charitably
when they discourse among themselves or engage a text. It is crucial
that you advise them of the value of charity, viz., that charitable
treatment of an argument or position will increase the power of their own
argument by ensuring the active participation of one's argumentative
interlocutor. By the way, this advice is also useful to one who constructs
an argument, since once constructed, it can be misinterpreted too---it
behooves an arguer to minimize, as much as is reasonable, the need for
charity in the reconstruction of their reasoning.
- Stress the implicit. Reading between the lines of an
argument is an art. To do it well, one must be familiar with
the context of the argument, the goals of the arguer, and the style of
their argumentation, among other things. Of course, when
reconstructing an argument, not all of this information is available at
all times, so one must speculate on what the author of the argument must
have meant. This speculation is constrained by the principle of
charity, which enjoins the critic to give the arguer the benefit of any
reasonable doubt. But it is a crucial part of critical thinking at
this stage. Arguers leave steps unsaid for various reasons, such as
a belief that their audience can fill in these blanks or laziness or
failure to appreciate the need for the step. Without these steps,
though, the argument is more an argument sketch than a full-fledged case
for a conclusion. In such a case, failure to credit the arguer with
implicit steps results in reconstruction of a incomplete and weak piece of
reasoning that can be dismissed much too easily, and so is incompatible
with the principle of charity. Thus, speculation on what might be
necessary to fill in the gaps and strengthen the argument is required by
this principle. You will need to require it of your students.
(On the construction side, you should advise students to be sure not to
leave implicit anything that they think might be overlooked by their
audience.)
- Embrace the differences in reconstructions. If you divide
your class up into n groups to reconstruct the arguments in a given
text, you will get n different reconstructions, guaranteed.
As you might expect, there will be differences in what the groups find
between the lines of the argument, but the differences will typically go
beyond this. They will disagree about what is relevant, about what
are the reasons, and about
what are the reasons. But variation of this sort is a good thing,
and something on which you can capitalize in a number of ways.
First, it reveals the importance to critical thinking of what you bring to
the table with you---of the context you provide as critic. Second,
it highlights the artistic and unpredictable nature of reading between the
lines. Third, it demonstrates the fact that in most cases---perhaps
in all but those where the argument is laid out fully in standard
form---the text that is home to the argument underdetermines the precise
nature of the argument. This allows for flexibility, and it is
this that underwrites the differences among the various
reconstructions. Beware, though: this flexibility does not imply
that anything goes---while you may have different but equally defensible
reconstructions, you may also find among the bunch a number of mistaken
reconstructions. Distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable
differences.
- Arguments should flow. Whether you are constructing or
reconstructing an argument, it should flow from reasons to
conclusions. If you can't set it up so that you are conveyed
naturally from beginning to end, from reasons to conclusion, then you
still have work to do. If you are constructing an argument, know
that failure to bridge gaps will open the door for criticism that no
amount of charity may help you avoid. If you are reconstructing an
argument of another, failure to bridge gaps can either be a sign that you
have not completely identified the tacit premises or intermediate
conclusions, consistent with the principle of charity, or you have
encountered an argument that is just faulty in this way. A flowing
reconstruction is in place when you find that a given step in the argument
is either a premise or follows naturally and reasonably from those steps
that precede it. Aim for this, both in the examples you use and in
the works you accept from your students. Expect to make a point of
this early while teaching argument reconstruction---those who are new to
this can often appreciate the macrodetails of an argument without
recognizing the gaps that remain between its steps. Call attention
to this early and often in discussion.
- Attend to both construction and reconstruction. Be sure to
have students construct arguments of their own and reconstruct arguments
of others, so that they know what life is like on both sides of the
critical thinking process. The differences in perspective and
pressure make these two closely related activities very different in
character. But familiarity with both is obviously valuable, since
students will put in time on both sides of the process throughout their
lives. In fact, in an argumentative dialogue, they will toggle back and
forth between them as the discourse unfolds. (One way to do this is
to have the students reconstruct arguments and then defend their
reconstructions.)
III. Instructional Ideas
- Distribute a handout with the reconstruction algorithm. Some
variation of the reconstruction algorithm, described in the theoretical
part of this chapter, could be copied onto a handout and distributed at
that point in the course when you want to begin teaching this stage of the
critical thinking process to your students. If you do this, be sure
to use the handout to structure early efforts at reconstruction, both in
your examples and in the exercises you give your students. With
respect to the latter, you might require them to reconstruct an argument
explicitly in the steps that are listed on the handout.
- Do reconstructions in groups. Distribute a text, or have
them read a text in advance, that is argumentative. Divide the
students up into groups of three or four and instruct them to reconstruct
the argument(s) in the text, putting them in standard form. Give
them about 20 minutes to do this, and have one of them write out the
arguments with a pen on overhead slides. Spend the last 20 to 25
minutes of class reviewing the slides. As you put a slide up, have
the responsible group talk everyone through it and defend it. Try to
get an argument out of them, either directly or by involving other groups
that have seen things differently. This is an excellent way to get
through an argumentative text in a fashion that exercises critical
thinking skills.
- Test their ability to distinguish the relevant from the
irrelevant. As an exercise, prepare an argumentative brief on a
text that you are reading in your course. Make it no longer than a
page, but include within it a number of irrelevant claims. Some of
these could be wildly irrelevant, but make sure that some are hard to
distinguish. (To do this, be sure that you have your argument first,
and then embellish it with the irrelevant.) The exercise is for the
students to reconstruct the argument after successfully distinguishing
relevant from irrelevant. This could be done in class or as a
take-home assignment.
- Discuss reconstructive differences in class. When you do a
reconstruction exercise, either as a class in discussion or groups, or
individually, be sure to devote some time early in this stage to
discussion of the differences that will inevitably arise. Be sure to
indicate that there isn't typically a single correct way to reconstruct
the reasoning, although there will be more and less correct ways.
Comment on what serves to distinguish the better from the worse in your
particular case.
- Use presentations to exercise argument construction and
reconstruction. Have students prepare 10 minute presentations on
the material in your class, either individually or in groups. It is
good to use these to kick off a discussion. Require that these
presentations include an argument that they have constructed about the
reading for that week, or about a topic that is related to the
reading. (You might have a group a week do this on a dedicated
discussion day.) While they are presenting, have the rest of the
class take notes. After they are through with the presentation and
after the clarificatory questions have been answered, give the class 5
minutes to reconstruct the presentation reasoning as they understood
it. These should be collected at the end of class and given to the
presenter(s), as a way of indicating just how clear their presentation
was. Call on a few people to go through their reconstruction and
have the presenter(s) respond to this. Once it is clear that everyone is
on the same page (or at least in the same book), open the discussion more
broadly to criticism and extension.
- Distribute good student essays and have groups reconstruct the
reasoning in them. If you have your students write short (1 to 2 page)
essays, copy a couple of good ones that address important topics and
distribute them. Divide the class into groups and have them
reconstruct the reasoning contained in the essays. This is a useful
variation on (B) above in that the author of the text in question is in
the room to respond to reconstruction attempts.
IV. Illustrations
In this section, I present reconstructions of the arguments found in the three pieces
discussed in the Applications section of Chapter Four. These arguments are represented in
standard form. It should be noted that these representations are really the end of the
reconstruction process. The process should begin with a list of explicit argumentative
claims, and then one should take these and organize them according to the specific
arguments that comprise them. After this is done, one can begin filling in the blanks in
the argument with those claims that one charitably takes to be implicit in the episode of
argumentation. Once you have these in hand, you can put them all together in standard
form, as I have done below.
II.1 An Interview with Mario Benedetti
This is a brief piece, but it is rich with argumentation. As initial discussion of it
in Chapter Four revealed, there are arguments all over the place in it. In fact, only
responses 6, 7, and 11 lack arguments, and even that is not so clear, at least in the case
of response 6. In what follows, I will reconstruct the reasoning as I find it in this
interview, response by response. The arguments will be represented in standard form, and I
will indicate implicit steps.
A. Response 1:
P1. If humanity remains hungry, homeless, and poor, then it is "going straight to
suicide."
P2. They will not go to suicide. (Imp)
3. Thus, they will not keep going straight to suicide; rather,
they will change course in a positive way. (1, 2)
P4. If positive change will take place, then it will come from movements and not
revolutions or armed struggles.
-------------------------------------
C. Therefore, there will be positive change effected for humanity
by movements, such as trade union movements, social movements, etc.
B. Response 2:
P1. If a guerilla group wishes to take authoritarian power, then it is not plausible
and, in fact, almost suicide.
P2. All but the EZLN in Chiapas, Mexico want to take authoritarian power.
-------------------------------------
C. All but the EZLN are not plausible guerilla groups.
C. Response 3:
P1. EZLN is earning the respect of ordinary folk.
P2. Government is losing the respect of ordinary folk.
P3. If EZLN gains respect while the Mexican government loses it, change will occur in
Mexico. (Imp)
-------------------------------------
C. Change will occur in Mexico.
D. Response 4A:
P1. Changes in power are occurring in Mexico.
-------------------------------------
C. Therefore, Mexico is getting ready for these changes.
E. Response 4B:
P1. The surveys (of the Mexican people) indicate that the PRI is unpopular.
-------------------------------------
C. The PRI’s unpopularity is evident.
F. Response 5:
P1. If I go to the Lacandone jungle, I’ll die.
P2. I don’t want to die. (Imp)
P3. I won’t go to the jungle. (Imp)
P4. If I don’t go, I should send a message. (Imp)
-------------------------------------
C. I should send a message.
G. Response 8:
P1. Corruption generates poverty.
P2. Mexico is very corrupt—corruption is "almost an institution."
P3. Mexico is very poor and is suffering from this. (Imp)
4. Mexico's poverty is caused by its corruption. (1, 2, 3 -- Imp)
P4. If Mexico is poor and its poverty is caused by its corruption, then it suffers most
from its corruption. (Imp)
-------------------------------------
C. Mexico suffers most from corruption.
H. Responses 9 & 10:
P1. Guerillas kidnapped embassy personnel in Peru.
P2. Talks had started between the government and the kidnappers.
P3. The guerillas had surrendered. (Imp)
P4. Cuba and the Dominican Republic had agreed to give the guerillas refuge.
P5. Fujimori sent people to kill the kidnappers.
-------------------------------------
C. Fujimori acted badly.
| For identification of these arguments, go here. |
| For evaluation of these arguments, go here. |
II.2 Jonathan Alter on the Death Penalty
As I noted in Chapter Four, there are two main lines of argument in this piece. The
first is delivered in paragraphs 2 through 9, while the second is located in paragraphs 10
and 11. In each of the two arguments, two premises are themselves conclusions of
sub-arguments. In this section, I will present reconstructions of the two main arguments,
in standard form, along with the sub-arguments that support premises of both. In
parentheses after each step, I indicate the paragraph from which the step was taken and
whether the step is implicit. Further, I indicate with an asterisk the steps that are
themselves supported by further argument in the text.
A. Main Argument 1:
*P1. We are executing innocent people in the United States. (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8)
*P2. The judicial system is not set up to ensure that we do not execute innocent people.
(3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)
P3. If we are executing innocent people and the judicial system is not set up to help us
avoid this, then we must place a moratorium on executions until we change the
system. (2 – Imp)
------------------------------------
C. We must place a moratorium on executions until we change the system.
(2 – the "until" clause is implicit)
A.1 Argument for P1:
P1'. There is much anecdotal evidence of inmates executed
without there being clear evidence of their guilt (e.g., Roy Roberts, Gary Graham).
(2, 5-8)
P2'. Many states, including Texas, do not allow death row inmates
to get DNA testing on demand, and this means that many die without their guilt being
confirmed by DNA testing. (3)
P3'. Illinois released several men from death row on the basis of
DNA tests revealing that they were not the perpetrators. (2)
-------------------------------------
C(P1). We are executing innocent people in the United States.
A.2 Argument for P2:
P1'. Many states, including Texas, do not allow death row inmates to
get DNA testing on demand, and this means that many die without their guilt being
confirmed by DNA testing. (3)
P2'. After a conviction, the only way that a death row inmate can gain a
reprieve is if (1) it can be shown that there was gross procedural error in the
initial proceedings, and (2) the defense attorneys protest that this is so early in
the process. This is so even if there is now considerable doubt about the
inmate’s guilt. (4)
P3'. As long as the defense attorney breathes, (s)he is
"effective" in the eyes of the law, even though (s)he can be
"indisputably incompetent", as in the Gary Graham case. (9, 6)
P4'. Courts tend to trust the opinions of the original jurors only if
they haven’t changed; if they have, then the jurors are no longer trusted. (7)
P5'. Recent judicial and legislative actions have made it much more
difficult to earn a federal reprieve. (8)
-------------------------------------
C(P2). The judicial system is not set up to ensure that we do not execute innocent people.
B. Main Argument 2:
*P1. Most Texans believe that they have executed an innocent person. (11)
2. Texas has executed an innocent person.
P3. If Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is executed and
chose not to, and innocent people are executed, then we should be suspicious of
Bush’s ability to lead. (11 – Imp)
*P4. Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is executed and
chose not to. (10 – Imp)
-------------------------------------
C. Therefore, we should be suspicious of Bush’s ability to lead.
B.1 Argument for P1:
P1'. "A new poll shows that nearly 60 percent of Texans believe the
state has, at some point, executed the innocent." (11)
-------------------------------------
C(P1). Most Texans believe that they have executed an innocent person.
B.2 Argument for P4:
P1'. Texas leads the way in executions because they have no Public
Defenders and no "life without parole" sentences. (10)
P2'. Bush could have changed this system by signing into law a bill that would
have created a Public Defender system, but he vetoed it in favor of a more corrupt system.
(10)
P3'. If Bush has vetoed measures that would have decreased the execution rate
in Texas, then Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is
executed and chose not to. (10 – Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P4). Therefore, Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is
executed and chose not to.
| For identification of these arguments, go here. |
| For evaluation of these arguments, go here. |
II.3 Geckos and Sticky Feet
Articles reporting the results of scientific research often give the reader insight
into the process that led to those results. This is true of this article. While the
article is shorter than the other two, it is more densely argued, with most sentences in
the first four paragraphs contributing to claims in the main argument of the piece. I
reconstruct that argument, along with the arguments adduced in support of the premises.
A. Main Argument:
P1. The gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is due either
to (a) van der Waals forces, or (b) suction, or (c) friction, or (d) electrostatic
attraction, or (e) glue, or (f) water adsorption. (1-4)
*P2. It is not due to suction. (3, 4)
*P3. It is not due to friction. (3, 4)
*P4. It is not due to electrostatic attraction. (4)
*P5. It is not due to glue. (4)
P6. Of van der Waals forces and water adsorption, it is more likely due to van der Waals
forces. (Imp)
-------------------------------------
C. The gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings
is most likely due to van der Waals forces.
A.1 Argument A for P2:
P1'. The spatulae on gecko feet cannot be engaged or disengaged by
planting them perpendicularly on surfaces. (3)
P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is due
to suction, then the spatulae would have to be engaged and disengaged in this way. (3
– Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P2). Therefore, the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is
not due to suction.
A.2 Argument B for P2:
P1'. The adhesive force between gecko feet and surfaces is greater
than suction alone can account for. (4)
P2'. If suction were to account for the gecko’s ability to
effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings, then it would have to account for this force. (4
– Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P2). Therefore, suction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly
walk on walls and ceilings.
A.3 Argument C for P2:
P1'. Gecko feet work well in a vacuum. (4)
P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and
ceilings were to be explained by suction, then its feet should not work in a vacuum.
(4 -- Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P2). Therefore, suction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly
walk on walls and ceilings.
A.4 Argument A for P3:
P1'. The adhesive force between gecko feet and surfaces is 600
times greater than friction alone can account for. (3)
P2'. If friction were to account for the gecko’s ability to
effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings, then it would have to account for this
force. (3 – Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P3). Therefore, friction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly
walk on walls and ceilings.
A.5 Argument B for P3:
P1'. Gecko feet work well on glass. (4)
P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and
ceilings were to be explained by friction, then their feet should not work on glass.
(4 -- Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P3). Therefore, friction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly
walk on walls and ceilings.
A.6 Argument for P4:
P1'. Gecko feet function in ionized air. (4)
P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and
ceilings were to be explained by electrostatic attraction, then their feet should
not work in ionized air. (4 -- Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P4). Therefore, electrostatic attraction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability
to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings
A.7 Argument for P5:
P1'. Gecko feet do not have glue glands. (4)
P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and
ceilings were to be explained by glue, then their feet should have glue glands. (4
-- Imp)
-------------------------------------
C(P5). Therefore, glue is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly
walk on walls and ceilings.
| For identification of these arguments, go here. |
| For evaluation of these arguments, go here. |
|