Direct Arguments.

Direct arguments are what we might call "basic," "ordinary" or "stand-alone" arguments. The defining characteristic of a direct argument is that it gives us no real reason to doubt the validity or strength of any other argument. Direct arguments, however they are phrased, only offer reasons that can support conclusions about the state of the universe, and thus they have conclusions that are not about logic. Direct arguments, when they support anything, support conclusions like "Wolverines are related to weasels," "Bigfoot doesn't exist," "the world is getting flatter," "cheese is not a vegetable," and "it is immoral to start a war based entirely on distorted and/or fabricated evidence."

If something is a direct argument, then it is going to follow one of the strategies we have looked at so far. Now, at least some of these strategies can be used in counter arguments, so identifying the strategy doesn't necessarily conclusively identify the argument as a direct argument, but if it is a direct argument, then it is going to be using one of the seven strategies.

To review, those strategies are:

Authority: The conclusion is based on the otherwise unsupported word of some person, group or institution.
Generalization: A conclusion about a whole population is based on the characteristics of a sample taken from that population.
Causal: The conclusion is based on a correlation between two kinds of events.
Analogy: The conclusion is based on a comparison between two things.
Burden of Proof: The conclusion is based on a lack of evidence for the other side's position.
Explanation: The conclusion is based on the idea that it has to be true to explain sone other, undisputed, facts.
Deductive: The conclusion is based on the claim that the premises can't all be true if the conclusion is false.


Countering the Strategies

One way of figuring out whether something is a counter argument is to see if it is trying to hook into the specific ways that each of the seven strategies can go wrong. So there are strategy-specific counter arguments as well as strategy-specific direct arguments. So:

1. If an argument tries to undermine an authority cited in another argument, then the first argument is a counter argument.
2. If an argument tries to show that there is something relevantly wrong with a sampling method used by another argument, then the first argument is a counter argument.
3. If an argument tries to show that there is something wrong with a correlation relied upon by another argument, then the first argument is a counter argument.
4. If an argument tries to show that two things compared in another argument are not relevantly similar, then the first argument is a counter argument.
5. If an argument is trying to shift the burden of proof explicitly relied upon by another argument, then the first argument is a counter argument.
6. If an argument tries to show that an explanation relied upon by another argument is not uniquely reasonable, then the first argument is a counter argument.
7. If an argument tries to show that it is easily possible for the conclusion of another argument to be false, even if all of that argument's premises are true, then the first argument is a counter argument.
8. If an argument tries to show that the premises of some other argument can't all be true, then the first argument is a counter argument.


One way to tell whether some argument is a direct argument or a counter argument is to ask yourself whether the argument's premises concern the premises of another argument. This is because a counter argument is an attack on the logic of another argument. In order to attack the logic of an argument, you have to say something about the truth of the premises, or how the premises are related to the conclusion. Either way, you have to say something about the premises.


Complicated Arguments 1.

Sometimes, an argument will consist of two or more smaller arguments mashed together. In that case, you might find it useful to seperate out the smaller arguments so that they can be related to each other, which will help you evaluate the argument as a whole. If you didn't seperate out the various little arguments in the standardization phase, you can take care of it in the analysis phase.

Example 18

Remember that I first standardized this argument

Kiley: The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue!

As:
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
3. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. This advertising campaign is not anything anyone has any reason to get upset about.

But now I'm thinking that this argument is more complicated than I thought it was, so maybe I need to split it into two or more arguments. After due consideration, I decide to restandardize the argument as follows.

Kiley A. (sub-argument to Kiley B.)
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.

Kiley B. (Main argument.)
1. The issue of this advertising campaign would only be of moral concern if it was a health issue.
2. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is not of moral concern.

Since all of the claims in the above argument would presumably be disputed by people who were upset over this, I'm calling all of them opinions for now.

Since I made it two seperate arguments, I gave those arguments names so I could talk about them. Notice that the conclusion of argument Kiley A is the same as premise 2 of Kiley B. This is why I decided that Kiley A is a sub-argument to Kiley B.

Judgement Calling

The way you analyze some particular argument might depend on on what other arguments it happens to come with. Compare and contrast the following two examples.

Example 19

Let's put Kiley's argument logically downstream from an opposing argument.

Reed The tobacco industry created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. Smoking is well known to be a serious health issue, and so the black community, and all communities, should be outraged by the tobacco industry's callous disregard for the health of black youth.
Kiley The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue!

Now it seems that part of Kiley's argument is a counter argument to Reed's argument. So we can analyze this issue thus:

Reed (Direct argument.)
1. The tobacco industry created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people.
2. Smoking is a serious health issue.
C. We should be outraged by the tobacco industry's actions.

Kiley A. (sub-argument to Kiley B. --Counter Argument to Reed's argument.)
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.

Kiley B. (Main argument - Direct.)
1. The issue of this advertising campaign would only be of moral concern if it was a health issue.
2. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is not of moral concern.

I'm calling Kiley A a counter argument to Reed because it attacks one of Reed's premises. And I'm saying that Kiley B is a direct argument because it attempts to establish its conclusion without directly addressing Reed's argument. However, this is not the only way we might encounter Kiley's argument.

Example 20

We might also find Kiley's argument logically upstream from an opposing argument.

Kiley The black community should not be upset that we created a marketing campaign and special brand names to appeal to young black people. This wasn't intended to get people to start smoking. It was designed to get people to switch brands, so it's a brand identification issue, not a health issue!
Tania The fact that you only intended to get existing young black smokers to switch brands doesn't mean that your campaign won't cause hundreds and hundreds of young black people to start smoking, so it darn well is a health issue!

In which case, we might standardize and analyze the set like so:

Kiley A. (sub-argument to Kiley B.)
1. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was intended to get people to switch brands.
2. The tobacco company's campaign that appealed to young blacks was was not intended to get people to start smoking.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.

Kiley B. (Main argument - Direct.)
1. The issue of this advertising campaign would only be of moral concern if it was a health issue.
2. The issue of this advertising campaign is a brand identification issue, not a health issue.
C. The issue of this advertising campaign is not of moral concern.

Tania A (Counter to Kiley A.)
1. Kiley argues that the tobacco industry's brand-switching intentions make this not a health issue.
(2. The kind of issue an action is depends on that action's effects, not on the actor's intentions.)
C. This could still be a health issue.

Tania B (Direct Argument. Opposing argument to Kiley A, counter argument to Kiley B.)
(1. The tobacco industry campaign will cause many young black people to start smoking.)
2. Anything that causes people to start smoking is a health issue.
C. The tobacco industry campaign is a health issue.

I filled in premise 2 of Tania A because it seemed to me that Tania must be appealing to this particular logical rule, but I put it in parentheses as a suppressed premise because I think I'm going a little beyond what Tania actually says. Similarly with premise 1 of Tania B. I think that Tania is assuming that the campaign will cause people to start smoking, so I put that point in as a premise to one of her arguments. But since she doesn't explicitly say it, I make it a suppressed premise.

I'm splitting up Tania's argument into a direct argument and a counter argument because it also seems to me that she is intending to both knock down Kiley's argument A and independently establish that the campaign is a health issue. It also seems plausible to me that Tania wants us to think that the campaign is a bad thing, so we might fill in the following argument.

Tania C (Direct Argument. Opposing argument to Kiley B.)
(1. The tobacco industry campaign will cause many young black people to start smoking.)
(2. Anything that causes people to start smoking is a bad thing.)
(C. The tobacco industry campaign is a health issue.)

Or maybe not. Look at how I had to put everything in parentheses! This is a real judgement call, so I'll leave it up to you. If you think that Tania's explicit statements make it absolutely certain, then we should count Tania C as one of Tania's arguments. If you think that Tania's explicit statements make it reasonably possible (don't think about likely, just about reasonably possible) that she did not intend to make argument Tania C, then Tania C should not be counted as one of her arguments.

Generally speaking, standardization, contexting and analysis apply to the arguments you've got. You don't need to fill in any other arguments you might come up with until the evaluation phase. Of course, if you happen to know about Reed's arguments as well as Kiley's and Tania's, you could analyze the whole mess all at once. Or you could maybe come up with whole suppressed arguments to fill in gaps in the logical structure. That is the kind of stuff you're supposed to think about in the evaluation phase, but you don't neccessarily have to do it in the analysis phase.

Homework. For each of the following argument sets, determine whether or not the second argument is a direct or a counter argument, and indicate it as such on the Homework Answer Sheet (If you want extra practice, or you have to make up this homework, do all 10 on the Make-up Homework Answer Sheet 1. Raegan. How can you stand there and protest the war? Don't you know our boys are over there? Rohan. Well, if there wasn't a war, wouldn't they be back here instead of over there? 2. Tyshawn. I think that sex education is a good idea. It would help kids cope with their sexual feelings if they knew where they were coming from and what they could lead to. Magdalena. Ha! Dr. Laura Schlockslinger says that sex education is immoral and dangerous, so we should ban it from schools. That proves sex education is a bad idea. 3. Rocio: Jesse Jackson says that Charleston, S.C. police need better training and better pay. Estevan: We can't take Jesse Jackson's word on political issues. He wears a tie. 4. Aden. I just read a fascinating book by man called Harold Peterson, who spent ten years researching the history of baseball. He says that baseball was brought to America by the British in the 1750's under the name of "rounders." Modern baseball was established and popularized in the 1840s and 50's by Alexander Cartwright and his friends of the Knickerbocker Base Ball Club. Lizette. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows Abner Doubleday invented baseball at Cooperstown in 1839. 5. Regan. Don't you know that Professor Bar Soom says that the Mars Meteorites constitute definitive proof that there was once life on Mars. Madisyn. But Bar Soom is a professor of literature who studies Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars novels! 6. Alessandro. I was just reading a report by some feminist group or other. They took World Health Organization and United Nations statistics for the amount of the world's work that is done by women and compared it to the amount of the world's wealth that is actually controlled by women. It turns out that two-thirds of the world's work is actually done by women while only five percent of the world's wealth is controlled by women. Liliana. That is complete and utter nonsense! Don't you know that PARADE magazine reported that 86 percent of all the personal wealth in the United States is owned by women! 86 percent! Now do you see that those feminists don't know what they're talking about? 7. Cullen. I think it's pretty clear that drinking bottled water causes mopery. A recent study has shown that people who drink bottled water are four times as likely to mope around as people who don't drink bottled water. Sterling. Yes, but the study also showed that there's plenty of people who mope around without ever touching bottled water, so the study doesn't prove that drinking bottled water causes mopery. 8. Roland. Statistics show that once people start using a sunscreen, they almost never go back to sunbathing without it. So obviously use of sunscreen makes people dependent on sunscreen. Since it is bad for people to be dependent, we should abolish sunscreen now. Vilma. Doesn't it occur to you that people continue to need sunscreen because strong sunlight continues to contain dangerous ultraviolet radiation? 9. Toker. I've been smoking marijuana regularly for thirty years. I've been a stable and productive member of society all that time. I've never been in trouble, missed work, or hurt anyone. I've never driven while stoned. You haven't given me any reasons why marijuana smoking is morally wrong. In fact, all the arguments for the immorality of marijuana fail for one reason or another. So it's clearly not morally wrong to smoke marijuana. Citlalli. Can you prove that some time in the future, maybe tomorrow, someone won't come up with a good argument? Can you prove that there's no argument out there waiting to be discovered? You can't, so it is morally wrong to smoke marijuana. 10. Annabelle. I really don't see any reason to assume that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda were not allies before the Iraq invasion. In fact, I think that they were working closely together! Octavio. But what about the fact that Al Qaeda is a group of religious extremists sworn to destroy secular governments like Hussein's and the fact that Hussein vigorously persecuted Islamicists like Al Qaeda whenever he could reach them?

Possible Quiz Questions (This ain't homework! Memorize the answers for next class, cuz there will be a quiz.)
1. In your own words, define the term "conclusion."
2. In your own words, define the term "premise."
3. What is a "suppressed premise?"
4. What is a "suppressed conclusion?"
5. What is the purpose of standardizing arguments?
6. What does "basic question" mean?
7. What does "background knowledge" mean?
8. What is a "null hypothesis?"
9. What does "burden of proof" mean?
10. What is a "candidate principle?"
11. What is a "direct" argument?
12. What is a "counter" argument?



Possible Quiz Questions (This ain't homework! Memorize the answers for next class, cuz there will be a quiz.)
1. What is fact mining?
2. How exactly are facts different from opinions?
3. What is a candidate principle?
4. What is the difference between a direct argument and a counter argument?
5. How do you make a counter argument against an authority argument?
6. How do you make a counter argument against a general argument?
7. How do you make a counter argument against a causal argument?
8. How do you make a counter argument against a burden of proof argument?
9. How do you make a counter argument against an explanation argument?

Homework 2. Standardize, Context and Analyze each of the following argument sets, and then either turn your results as your second homework, OR select the most correct answers from the choices following the sets on the Homework 2 Answer Sheet (If you want hints, see the SCA hints sheet.) (For contexting you will be graded on whether or not you get the basic question right, since the other stuff can be highly arguable.) 1. Raegan. How can you stand there and protest the war? Don't you know our boys are over there? Rohan. Well, if there wasn't a war, wouldn't they be back here instead of over there? 2. Tyshawn. I think that sex education is a good idea. It would help kids cope with their sexual feelings if they knew where they were coming from and what they could lead to. Magdalena. Ha! Dr. Laura Schlockslinger says that sex education is immoral and dangerous, so we should ban it from schools. That proves sex education is a bad idea. 3. Rocio: Jesse Jackson says that Charleston, S.C. police need better training and better pay. Estevan: We can't take Jesse Jackson's word on political issues. He wears a tie.

Writing Homework (For my critical thinking and writing and critical thinking and discourse classes.) Pick three of the above homework dialogs and, for each one, write a paragraph explaining exactly what is wrong with the weaker of the two arguments. If the above homework does not include enough dialogs, pick three dialogs from the exercises that preceed the homework. It is important that you work on three dialogs for this homework.

1. What is the difference between direct arguments and counter arguments?
2. Can a counter argument ever established a fact about something that is not an argument?
3. Can a direct argument ever prove that some other argument is bad?

Copyright © 2004 by Martin C. Young

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By.