|
-------------------------------------------------------
Argument flow will vary from argument to argument. Here is a somewhat artificial example, but it makes the point clearly: (a) if I want ice cream, then I need to go to the refrigerator; (b) if I need to go to the refrigerator, then I need to get my butt up off the couch; (c) if I need to get my butt up off the couch, then I need to stop watching television; (d) I want ice cream; (e) therefore, I need to stop watching television. Symbolically, this argument looks like this: (a) if A, then B; (b) if B, then C; (c) if C, then D; (d) A; (e) therefore, D. This is what the logicians call an inference, and it flows very smoothly. The steps are connected---(a) shares a sentence with (b), and (b) with (c); further, (d) affirms the first part of (a), and (e) shares the latter part of (c). One way to think about the flow here is by analogy with dominoes: (a) through (c) are analogous to dominoes set up in a row, and (d) is analogous to knocking the first one over. In this case, it is not surprising that the last one falls over as well. In this case, argument flow is guaranteed by steps that contain parts of other steps; however, this is not necessary. You can have arguments that flow without overlap, but in general, the more overlap, the smoother the flow of the argument.
|