Rounding Out Arguments

Deductive vs. Inductive arguments

The concepts of validity and soundness that we have introduced apply only to the class of what are called "deductive arguments". A deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its premises with absolute certainty, thus leaving no possibility that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. For a deductive argument to fail to do this is for it to fail as a deductive argument. In contrast, an inductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its premises with a high level of probability, which means that although it is possible that the conclusion doesn't follow from its premises, it is unlikely that this is the case. Here is an example of an inductive argument:

Notice that the conclusion, Tweets probably flies, contains the word "probably". This is a clear indicator that the argument is supposed to be inductive, not deductive. Here is the argument in standard form:

1. Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird
   
2. Most healthy, normally functioning birds fly
3. Therefore, Tweets probably flies
   

Given the information provided by the premises, the conclusion does seem to be well supported. That is, the premises do give us a strong reason for accepting the conclusion. This is true even though we can imagine a scenario in which the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. For example, suppose that we added the following premise:

Were we to add that premise, the conclusion would no longer be supported by the premises, since any bird that is 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph, is not a kind of bird that can fly. That information leads us to believe that Tweets is an ostrich or emu, which are not kinds of birds that can fly. As this example shows, inductive arguments are defeasible arguments since by adding further information or premises to the argument, we can overturn (defeat) the verdict that the conclusion is well-supported by the premises. Inductive arguments whose premises give us a strong, even if defeasible, reason for accepting the conclusion are called, unsurprisingly, strong inductive arguments. In contrast, an inductive argument that does not provide a strong reason for accepting the conclusion are called weak inductive arguments.

Whereas strong inductive arguments are defeasible, valid deductive arguments aren't. Suppose that instead of saying that most birds fly, premise 2 said that all birds fly.

1. Tweets is a healthy, normally function bird.
2. All healthy, normally functioning birds can fly.
   
3. Therefore, Tweets can fly.

This is a valid argument and since it is a valid argument, there are no further premises that we could add that could overturn the argument's validity. (True, premise 2 is false, but as we've seen that is irrelevant to determining whether an argument is valid). Even if we were to add the premise that Tweets is 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph, it doesn't overturn the validity of the argument. As soon as we use the universal generalization, "all healthy, normally function birds can fly," then when we assume that premise is true and add that Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird, it has to follow from those premises that Tweets can fly. This is true even if we add that Tweets is 6 ft tall because then what we have to imagine (in applying our informal test of validity) is a world in which all birds, including those that are 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph, can fly.

Although inductive arguments are an important class of argument that are commonly used every day in many contexts, logic texts tend not to spend as much time with them since we have no agreed upon standard of evaluating them. In contrast, there is an agreed upon standard of evaluation of deductive arguments. We have already seen what that is; it is the concept of validity. In chapter 2 we will learn some precise, formal methods of evaluating deductive arguments. There are no such agreed upon formal methods of evaluation for inductive arguments. This is an area of ongoing research in philosophy. In chapter 3 we will revisit inductive arguments and consider some ways to evaluate inductive arguments.

Source: Matthew J. Van Cleave
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Arguments with missing premises

Quite often, an argument will not explicitly state a premise that we can see is needed in order for the argument to be valid. In such a case, we can supply the premise(s) needed in order so make the argument valid. Making missing premises explicit is a central part of reconstructing arguments in standard form. We have already dealt in part with this in the section on paraphrasing, but now that we have introduced the concept of validity, we have a useful tool for knowing when to supply missing premises in our reconstruction of an argument. In some cases, the missing premise will be fairly obvious, as in the following:

The premise and conclusion of this argument are straightforward:

1. Gary is a convicted sex-offender
   
2. Therefore, Gary is not allowed to work with children (from

1) However, as stated, the argument is invalid. (Before reading on, see if you can provide a counterexample for this argument. That is, come up with an imaginary scenario in which the premise is true and yet the conclusion is false.) Here is just one counterexample (there could be many): Gary is a convicted sex-offender but the country in which he lives does not restrict convicted sex-offenders from working with children. I don't know whether there are any such countries, although I suspect there are (and it doesn't matter for the purpose of validity whether there are or aren't). In any case, it seems clear that this argument is relying upon a premise that isn't explicitly stated. We can and should state that premise explicitly in our reconstruction of the standard form argument. But what is the argument's missing premise? The obvious one is that no sex- offenders are allowed to work with children, but we could also use a weaker statement like this one:

It should be obvious why this is a "weaker" statement. It is weaker because it is not so universal in scope, which means that it is easier for the statement to be made true. By relativizing the statement that sex-offenders are not allowed to work with children to the place where Gary lives, we leave open the possibility that other places in the world don't have this same restriction. So even if there are other places in the world where convicted sex-offenders are allowed to work with children, our statements could still be true since in this place (the place where Gary lives) they aren't. (For more on strong and weak statements, see section 1.10). So here is the argument in standard form:

1. Gary is a convicted sex-offender.
   
2. Where Gary lives, no convicted sex-offenders are allowed to work with children.
   
3. Therefore, Gary is not allowed to work with children. (from 1-2)
   

This argument is now valid: there is no way for the conclusion to be false, assuming the truth of the premises. This was a fairly simple example where the

missing premise needed to make the argument valid was relatively easy to see. As we can see from this example, a missing premise is a premise that the argument needs in order to be as strong as possible. Typically, this means supplying the statement(s) that are needed to make the argument valid. But in addition to making the argument valid, we want to make the argument plausible. This is called "the principle of charity". The principle of charity states that when reconstructing an argument, you should try to make that argument (whether inductive or deductive) as strong as possible. When it comes to supplying missing premises, this means supplying the most plausible premises needed in order to make the argument either valid (for deductive arguments) or inductively strong (for inductive arguments).

Although in the last example figuring out the missing premise was relatively easy to do, it is not always so easy. Here is an argument whose missing premises are not as easy to determine:

The conclusion of this argument, that the state should not allow gay marriage, is apparently supported by a single premise, which should be recognizable from the occurrence of the premise indicator, "since". Thus, our initial reconstruction of the standard form argument looks like this:

1. Children who are raised by gay couples often have psychological and emotional problems.
   
2. Therefore, the state should discourage gay couples from raising children.
   

However, as it stands, this argument is invalid because it depends on certain missing premises. The conclusion of this argument is a normative statement -  a statement about whether something ought to be true, relative to some standard of evaluation. Normative statements can be contrasted with descriptive statements, which are simply factual claims about what is true. For example, "Russia does not allow gay couples to raise children" is a descriptive statement. That is, it is simply a claim about what is in fact the case in Russia today. In contrast, "Russia should not allow gay couples to raise children" is a normative statement since it is not a claim about what is true, but what ought to be true, relative to some standard of evaluation (for example, a moral or legal standard). An important idea within philosophy, which is often traced back to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), is that statements about what ought to be the case (i.e., normative statements) can never be derived from statements about what is the case (i.e., descriptive statements). This is known within philosophy as the is-ought gap. The problem with the above argument is that it attempts to infer a normative statement from a purely descriptive statement, violating the is-ought gap. We can see the problem by constructing a counterexample. Suppose that in society x it is true that children raised by gay couples have psychological problems. However, suppose that in that society people do not accept that the state should do what it can to decrease harm to children. In this case, the conclusion, that the state should discourage gay couples from raising children, does not follow. Thus, we can see that the argument depends on a missing or assumed premise that is not explicitly stated. That missing premise must be a normative statement, in order that we can infer the conclusion, which is also a normative statement. There is an important general lesson here: Many times an argument with a normative conclusion will depend on a normative premise which is not explicitly stated. The missing normative premise of this particular argument seems to be something like this:

Notice that this is a normative statement, which is indicated by the use of the word "should". There are many other words that can be used to capture normative statements such as: good, bad, and ought. Thus, we can reconstruct the argument, filling in the missing normative premise like this:

1. Children who are raised by gay couples often have psychological and emotional problems.
   
2. The state should always do what it can to decrease harm to children.
   
3. Therefore, the state should discourage gay couples from raising children. (from 1-2)
   

However, although the argument is now in better shape, it is still invalid because it is still possible for the premises to be true and yet the conclusion false. In order to show this, we just have to imagine a scenario in which both the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. Here is one counterexample to the argument (there are many). Suppose that while it is true that children of gay couples often have psychological and emotional problems, the rate of psychological problems in children raised by gay couples is actually lower than in children raised by heterosexual couples. In this case, even if it were true that the state should always do what it can to decrease harm to children, it does not follow that the state should discourage gay couples from raising children. In fact, in the scenario I've described, just the opposite would seem to follow: the state should discourage heterosexual couples from raising children.

But even if we suppose that the rate of psychological problems in children of gay couples is higher than in children of heterosexual couples, the conclusion still doesn't seem to follow. For example, it could be that the reason that children of gay couples have higher rates of psychological problems is that in a society that is not yet accepting of gay couples, children of gay couples will face more teasing, bullying and general lack of acceptance than children of heterosexual couples. If this were true, then the harm to these children isn't so much due to the fact that their parents are gay as it is to the fact that their community does not accept them. In that case, the state should not necessarily discourage gay couples from raising children. Here is an analogy: At one point in our country's history (if not still today) it is plausible that the children of black Americans suffered more psychologically and emotionally than the children of white Americans. But for the government to discourage black Americans from raising children would have been unjust, since it is likely that if there was a higher incidence of psychological and emotional problems in black Americans, then it was due to unjust and unequal conditions, not to the black parents, per se. So, to return to our example, the state should only discourage gay couples from raising children if they know that the higher incidence of psychological problems in children of gay couples isn't the result of any kind of injustice, but is due to the simple fact that the parents are gay.

Thus, one way of making the argument (at least closer to) valid would be to add the following two missing premises:

1. The rate of psychological problems in children of gay couples is higher than in children of heterosexual couples.
   
2. The higher incidence of psychological problems in children of gay couples is not due to any kind of injustice in society, but to the fact that the parents are gay.
   

1. Children who are raised by gay couples often have psychological and emotional problems.
   
2. The rate of psychological problems in children of gay couples is higher than in children of heterosexual couples.
   
3. The higher incidence of psychological problems in children of gay couples is not due to any kind of injustice in society, but to the fact that the parents are gay.
   
4. The state should always do what it can to decrease harm to children.
   
5. Therefore, the state should discourage gay couples from raising children. (from 1-4)
   

Assuring, guarding and discounting

As we have seen, arguments often have complex structures including subarguments (recall that a subargument is an argument for one of the premises of the main argument). But in practice people do not always give further reasons or argument in support of every statement they make. Sometimes they use certain rhetorical devices to cut the argument short, or to hint at a further argument without actually stating it. There are three common strategies for doing this:

Assuring: informing someone that there are further reasons although one is not giving them now

Guarding: weakening one's claims so that it is harder to show that the claims are false

Discounting: anticipating objections that might be raised to one's claim or argument as a way of dismissing those objections.

We will discuss these in order, starting with assuring. Why would we want to assure our audience? Presumably when we make a claim that isn't obvious and that the audience may not be inclined to believe. For example, if I am trying to convince you that the United States is one of the leading producers of CO₂ emissions, then I might cite certain authorities such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as saying so. This is one way of assuring our audience: by citing authorities. There are many ways to cite authorities, some examples of which are these:

Another way of assuring is to comment on the strength of one's own convictions. The rhetorical effect is that by commenting on how sure you are that something is true, you imply, without saying, that there must be very strong reasons for what you believe - assuming that the audience believes you are a reasonable person, of course. Here are some ways of commenting on the strength of one's beliefs:

Yet another way of assuring one's audience is to make an audience member feel that it would be stupid, odd, or strange to deny the claim one is making. One common way to do this is by implying that every sensible person would agree with the claim. Here are some examples:

Another common way of doing this is by implying that no sensible person would agree with a claim that we are trying to establish as false:

Assurances are not necessarily illegitimate, since the person may be right and may in fact have good arguments to back up the claims, but the assurances are not themselves arguments and a critical thinker will always regard them as somewhat suspect. This is especially so when the claim isn't obviously true.

Next, we will turn to guarding. Guarding involves weakening a claim so that it is easier to make that claim true. Here is a simple contrast that will make the point. Consider the following claims:

1. All U.S. Presidents were monogamous
   
2. Almost all U.S. Presidents were monogamous
   
3. Most U.S. Presidents were monogamous
4. Many U.S. Presidents were monogamous
   
5. Some U.S. Presidents were monogamous
   

Although each statement asserts the same facts, A seems to be recommending the worker, whereas B doesn't. We can imagine A continuing: "And so the manager decided to keep her on the team". We can imagine B continuing: "Which is why the manager decided to let her go". This is what we can call the "A but B" locution. The "A but B" locution is a form of discounting that introduces what will be dismissed or overridden first and then follows it by what is supposed to be the more important consideration. By introducing the claim to be dismissed, we are discounting that claim. There are many other words that can be used as discounting words instead of using "but". Table 2 below gives a partial list of words and phrases that commonly function as discounting terms. 

Exercise

Supply the missing premise or premises needed in order to make the following arguments valid. Try to make the premises as plausible as possible while making the argument valid (which is to apply the principle of charity).

1. Ed rides horses. Therefore, Ed is a cowboy.
   
2. Tom was driving over the speed limit. Therefore, Tom was doing something wrong.
   
3. If it is raining then the ground is wet. Therefore, the ground must be wet.
   
4. All elves drink Guinness, which is why Olaf drinks Guinness.
   
5. Mark didn't invite me to homecoming. Instead, he invited his friend Alexia. So he must like Alexia more than me.
   
6. The watch must be broken because every time I have looked at it, the hands have been in the same place.
   
7. Olaf drank too much Guinness and fell out of his second story apartment window. Therefore, drinking too much Guinness caused Olaf to injure himself.
   
8. Mark jumped into the air. Therefore, Mark landed back on the ground.
   
9. In 2009 in the United States, the net worth of the median white household was $113,149 a year, whereas the net worth of the median black household was $5,677. Therefore, as of 2009, the United States was still a racist nation.
   
10. The temperature of the water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, the water is boiling.
11. Capital punishment sometimes takes innocent lives, such as the lives of individuals who were later found to be not guilty. Therefore, we should not allow capital punishment.
    
12. Allowing immigrants to migrate to the U.S. will take working class jobs away from working class folks. Therefore, we should not allow immigrants to migrate to the U.S.
    
13. Prostitution is a fair economic exchange between two consenting adults. Therefore, prostitution should be allowed.
    
14. Colleges are more interested in making money off of their football athletes than in educating them. Therefore, college football ought to be banned.
    
15. Edward received an F in college Algebra. Therefore, Edward should have studied more.
    

Answers

1. 1. Anyone who rides horses is a cowboy.
   
2. Driving over the speed limit is wrong.
3. It is raining.
   
4. Olaf is an elf.
5. Any time a person has a choice of who to take to homecoming, they will take the person they like the most.
   
6. I have looked at the watch in frequent intervals - much more often than every 12 hours.
7. Only those who have drank too much fall out of apartment windows.
   
8. Mark is on Earth and is unassisted by any devices that help him overcome the Earth's gravity.
9. Any nation in which there is a large discrepancy between net worths of different races is a racist nation.
   
10. The water is at sea level.
    
11. First missing premise: We should not allows policies that have the potential of taking innocent lives, unless there is a very good reason to do so. Second missing premise: there is no very good reason to allow capital punishment.
    
12. First missing premise: We should not allow policies that take working class jobs away from working class folks, unless there is some very good reason to do so. Second missing premise: there is no very good reason to allow immigration that would offset the harm done to working class folks.
    
13. Any fair economic exchange between consenting adults should be allowed.
    
14. Anything that privileges using a student-athlete to make money for the college over that student-athlete's education should be banned.
    
15. Any student who receives an F in a course should have studied more for that course.
    

Exercise

Which rhetorical techniques (assuring, guarding, discounting) are being using in the following passages?

1. Although drilling for oil in Alaska will disrupt some wildlife, it is better than having to depend on foreign oil, which has the tendency to draw us into foreign conflicts that we would otherwise not be involved in.
   
2. Let there be no doubt: the entity that carried out this attack is a known terrorist organization, whose attacks have a characteristic style - a style that is seen in this attack today.
   
3. Privatizing the water utilities in Detroit was an unprecedented move that has garnered a lot of criticism. Nonetheless, it is helping Detroit to recover from bankruptcy.
   
4. Most pediatricians agree that the single most important factor in childhood obesity is eating sugary, processed foods, which have become all too common in our day and age.
   
5. Although not every case of AIDS is caused by HIV, it is arguable that most are.
6. Abraham Lincoln was probably our greatest president since he helped keep together a nation on the brink of splintering into two.
   
7. No one with any sense would support Obamacare.
   
8. Even if universal healthcare is expensive, it is still the just thing to do.
   
9. While our country has made significant strides in overcoming explicit racist policies, the wide disparity of wealth, prestige and influence that characterize white and black Americans shows that we are still implicitly a racist country.
   
10. Recent studies have show that there is no direct link between vaccines and autism.
    

Answers

1. Discounting
   
2. Assuring
3. Discounting
4. Assuring
5. Discounting
6. Guarding
7. Assuring
8. Discounting
9. Discounting
   
10. Assuring