|
-----------------------------------------------
These questions can be helpful, but it is important to note that they are not all on the same footing. Affirmative answers to (1) or (2) will typically justify claims as relevant, while negative answers will justify claims as irrelevant. Affirmative answers to (3) and (4) supply good evidence that claims are relevant, while negative answers supply good evidence for the opposite conclusion; however, connections between the subject matter of a claim and the subject matter of the argument of the sort mentioned in (3) and (4) do not prove relevance or irrelevance and are generally overridden by answers to (1) and (2). As indicated, these questions are only a guide---they make a tricky task easier, but they do not make it routine. In general, separating the relevant from the irrelevant is not easy, and it can be very confusing. It is not uncommon for someone to get caught up in the moment and add steps to an argument that do not serve any purpose. Still, in general, the person making the argument is the best one to consult when discriminating between what is relevant and what is not. If you are engaged in conversation, or if you have the arguer handy, then you may be able to ask the arguer for assistance. Thus, when possible, follow this additional rule of thumb: consult the arguer. If the arguer is not present, the job is more complicated. This is especially true if the argument is located in a non-verbal medium where it may not be so obvious how to distinguish argument elements one from another. Among other problems, you may have difficulty determining the number of arguments present. If there is more than one argument, then a claim that may be irrelevant to the argument you are reconstructing at the moment may be relevant to a different argument that you might reconstruct later. (To make matters worse, a single step might be a reason in one argument and a conclusion in another.) In addition, it may happen that a claim which appears irrelevant initially may turn out to be relevant as you engage in the reconstruction. Thus, we have two more rules of thumb: beware of multiple arguments, and be willing to change your mind about your classification.
|