Argument Reconstruction By the Numbers

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In many ways, reconstructing an argument is the trickiest and most difficult stage of critical thinking. Argument identification is aided considerably by conventional positioning and by key words, while argument analysis (as we'll see) turns on the use of systematic structures and the application of precise standards. Argument reconstruction, by contrast, often involves flying blind, pulling arguments out of undifferentiated tracts of text and, when that isn’t enough, the thin blue. Nevertheless, we have systematized the practice somewhat in this section with a procedure that one can follow in doing reconstruction work. (‘Text’ refers here to verbal or written collections of claims.)

Reconstruction Procedure

1. Evaluate text and determine which explicit claims are relevant. Write them down.
   
   
2. Divide these into reasons and conclusions.
   
   
   1. Conclusions will be supported, reasons will provide support.
      
      
   2. There may be more than one conclusion, since texts can contain multiple arguments.
      
      
   3. A given claim could be both a reason and a conclusion. Arguments can be nested, and when they are, conclusions of sub-arguments serve as reasons in larger arguments.
      
      
3. Organize the claims into groups. (Keep in mind that there will be conflicts, and when there are, you should invoke the attitude of charity; however, it isn’t always the case that there is an easy resolution to such conflicts. Some arguments are just confused, and no amount of massaging can remove the knots.) Organization can proceed using the following rules of thumb:
   
   
   1. One conclusion per group. As above, a claim can be a conclusion in one group and a reason in another.
      
      
   2. If two claims are in the same paragraph (section, etc.) and the argument comprises that paragraph (section, etc.), then put them in the same group.
      
      
   3. If two claims focus on the same subject matter, put them in the same group. The subject matter should be as finely individuated as the text in question allows.
      
      
   4. Pay attention to rhetorical markers. Markers like "first", "second", etc. are occasionally used to signal moves in an argument, and when they are, they will influence the distribution of claims to groups.
      
      
4. Cast the organized groups of steps in standard form, with the conclusion below the horizontal line.
   
   
5. Arrange the reasons by putting those that are topically the most closely related to the conclusion nearest the horizontal bar, and then moving up from the bar in a way that reflects increasing topical distance from the conclusion.
   

When you reach the end of this procedure, you should have at least one argument in standard form. With this in hand, you are ready to proceed to argument evaluation, the stage where arguments are evaluated and critical thinkers judge their merits.