ARGUMENT IDENTIFICATION & CASTING

Argument identification and argument analysis cannot be separated very cleanly –that is, they are interdependent procedures. We need to identify when an argument is being made and what it is about before we can analyze its structure. In fact, as we shall see, the first step in analyzing an argument involves the identification of its major parts. I shall provide some simple rules to follow here. Most rules will be coupled with a “question” which should help in the application of that rule to some given argument.

An argument is any group of propositions that support or give evidence for another proposition. From this definition of an argument we can extract three important points: a) an argument’s structure is going to consist of two basic components: the conclusion, or what we are being persuaded to do or believe; and the main premises, or the evidence that is supposed to persuade us; b) an argument has a function –to try and persuade someone of something using reason; and, c) there will be some structural relation between the evidence and the conclusion –the way in which the evidence supports the conclusion. We should note here that the evidence or reason supporting the conclusion does not have to be good –bad evidence or reasons make for a bad argument, but it is still an argument. Now, putting this together we can formulate the first rule of argument identification and analysis:

Rule One:	To determine whether or not some group or collection of sentences (written or verbal) is in fact an argument we need to determine whether or not someone is trying to persuade us of something using evidence/reason.
Q₁:	Ask yourself, am I supposed to be persuaded to do or believe something here? If so, am I supposed to be persuaded by evidence or something else?

Look at some examples:

Example A.

Of course Bush is the legitimate President of the USA. If you don’t agree with me, you are a traitor to your country. As we all know, traitors are scum and deserve to be executed.

Example B.

The legitimate President of the USA must be elected by a majority of the electors of the electoral college. Bush was appointed to his office by the actions of a majority of members of the Supreme Court; hence, Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA.

Example C.

Bush is the President of the USA. A great deal of controversy surrounds his Presidency because of the problems with vote counting in Florida during the election of 2000. Jeb Bush, the President’s brother was, and still is, the Governor of Florida. There are some who believe that Bush is not a legitimate President.

How do we figure out which of these is an argument is which is not? The answer may jump out at you, and appear obvious, but there is value to looking at the obvious answers in order to figure out how to do the less obvious problems. So, let’s apply our rules.

Example A is clearly trying to get us to believe something, namely, that Bush is the legitimate President of the USA. However, is Example A providing us with any evidence to believe this? Look closely at the last two sentences. They do provide us with a “reason” for agreeing with this conclusion, if you don’t want to be labeled a traitor and possibly executed. But, this “reason” is not evidence –it is a threat. Arguments use evidence to support their conclusions, not threats, coercion, or bribes. So, even though Example A is trying to be persuasive, it is not an argument.

Example B is also trying to get us to believe something. Read the example carefully again. As we read it seems clear that the last clause of the last sentence (“Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA”) is what we are supposed to believe here, and, moreover, that everything else being said is supposed to provide reason for believing this clause. Note that the reason we have for believing that “Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA” is not based on threat or coercion, but is based on a connection between two pieces of evidence: Presidents are elected, and Bush was not elected.

When we read Example C, however, we can’t find anything that stands out as a conclusion. This example provides information, and that information could be seen to imply a broad range of possible conclusions, but no conclusion is either given, or clearly indicated by the information. So, Example C is not an argument, because it is merely giving us information, not trying to persuade us of anything in particular.

Now, of course, we must be careful of the above examples. Most arguments that you will read and hear will be far more complex than B, and will often not be as complete as B, nor will they be as clearly articulated. We will look at each of these factors in turn in just a little while, so keep them in mind.

3. Argument Analysis

But, before we get there we should take the first steps in starting to analyze the argument that we have found in Example B. Remember that “analysis” is the process of breaking something down into its basic parts and understanding how these parts are related to one another. Hence, the analysis of an argument will involve us in the identification of its particular parts (conclusion, premise, sub-premises, missing premises, concession claims, and non-functional claims, all of which we will be talking about in a minute) and how these parts relate to one another. The ultimate goal of analysis is the reconstruction of the argument in such a way that its parts and structure are clearly revealed. Such reconstructed arguments lend themselves most satisfactorily to evaluation, which, I hope you remember is the point of critical thinking over-all.

The first step in analyzing an argument is purely procedural, but extremely helpful. While it is not something you absolutely need to do in your day-to-day analysis and evaluation of argument, it is a very useful heuristic device (teaching tool) and so something that you are required to do for our class. Very simply, the first step of argument analysis is to number the sentences and sentence-clauses of the arguments. At the very least you should number every complete sentence. However, at times it is important to break up complex sentences into two distinct components. A complex sentence (for our purposes) is any sentence composed of two or more clauses that can stand on their own as complete sentences. Thus, for example, “He was tired and he was hungry” is a complex sentence made up of two clauses: “he was tired” and “he was hungry.” Both of these clauses work as complete sentences. However, a sentence such as, “he walked upright, like a man” cannot be broken down into two complete sentences. “He walked upright” is a complete sentence, but “like a man” is not. Why, you might ask, must I spend so much time “numbering” the sentences and clauses of arguments? What you will find is that numbering the sentences and clauses makes it easier to analyze, reconstruct and evaluate the argument. This is particularly true of more complex arguments, incomplete arguments, and arguments that are not clearly articulated. When you are in the process of analyzing longer more complex arguments, you will find that the easiest way to learn how to do this is to read each sentence or clause together with each other sentence or clause to see how they fit together. It is much easier to do this if you have numbered the sentences. I will give you an example of a more complex argument in a moment.

After you have determined that you have found an argument, then you need to apply the second rule of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Two:	Put a number by every sentence or clause that can stand as an independent sentence.
Q₂:	For each complex sentence, ask yourself, can each clause of the sentence stand as an independent, complete sentence (with little or no modification)?

Let’s put the rule into practice. Go back to Example B above. How could we best number this argument? Go through each sentence. There are only two. Are either of these a complex sentence? Yes, the second one is complex. Could both clauses stand-alone? “Bush was appointed to his office by the actions of a majority of the Supreme Court.” And, “Hence, Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA.” So, the answer is clearly yes. This means that we have 3 numbers.

Example B1

[The legitimate President of the USA must be elected by a majority of the electors of the electoral college (1)]. [Bush was appointed to his office by the actions of a majority of members of the Supreme Court (2)], hence, [Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA (3)].

With this numbering in place, our analysis of the argument can proceed quickly. The first step in analyzing an argument is to break it down into its most basic parts. We have already seen, from our definition of what an argument is, that there are two basic parts: premises and a conclusion. Indeed, generally speaking, as soon as one knows that they are looking at an argument they already know what the conclusion is. However, it is best to articulate this as a separate rule, hence the third rule of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Three:

To identify an argument we must be able to determine what the conclusion of the argument is, and what the main premises or evidence is.

Q₃:

Ask yourself, what am I supposed to do or believe? (To determine the conclusion.) Ask yourself, why should I do or believe it? (To determine the main premises.)

Also, look for various signal words.

Words like: hence, so, therefore, in conclusion, and thus often signal the beginning of a conclusion.

Words like: because, since, or for often signal the beginning premises or evidentiary statements.

See ICT pp 73-74 for more examples of signal words and their use.

Whereas in Example A we could identify a conclusion but nothing that could count as evidence or premises, in Example B we can identify both a conclusion and premises or evidence in support of that conclusion. Example B is not trying to threaten us, but is trying to convince us with evidence. Applying Q₃ above, we find that the answer to the question, “What am I supposed to do or believe?” is that “Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA.” The answer to the second question, “Why am I supposed to do or believe it?” is that legitimate Presidents are elected, and Bush was appointed.

Our analysis of Example B, then, looks like this: (3) is the conclusion and (1) & (2) are the premises which support the conclusion.

We have, with this, effectively analyzed this argument. The last step is examining the relation between the premises and the conclusion; how the premises actually offer support for the conclusion. However, before we do this, which ultimately involves us in the process of casting, it is helpful if we look at a few more complicated examples of argument analysis so that we can learn to identify and tag other parts of arguments which are not present in this simple example. Specifically, we want first to look at premise-support, missing premises; non-functional claims and concession claims.

A. Premise Support.

Any statement that is a claim stands, ultimately, in need of support. The idea that Bush is not the legitimate President of the United States of America is a claim that needs support. But, each of the premises that attempt to support this claim is itself a claim. Hence, we can ask of each of the claims: “Why should I accept this as true?” What evidence do we have that legitimate Presidents must be elected by a majority of electors of the various states? What evidence do we have that Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court and not elected by a majority of electors? Often people who make arguments are concerned with justifying not only the conclusion of their arguments, but also in justifying the premises that support the conclusion. This process of justifying the premises is known as offering premise-support. Take a revised version of Example B:

Example B2

[The legitimate President of the USA must be elected by a majority of the electors of the electoral college. (1)] [This is what the Constitution requires. (2)] [But, the Supreme Court stopped the counting of ballots in Florida that would have determined which of the two candidates had actually won the electoral votes in that State. (3)] [Bush was, then, effectively appointed to his office by the actions of a majority of members of the Supreme Court. (4)] Hence, [Bush is not the legitimate President of the USA. (5)]

Sentences (2) and (3) have been added to this argument. Look carefully at the way in which they relate to the over-all argument. While both claims seem related to the conclusion (now (5)), neither seems to offer direct support for claim that Bush is illegitimate. To see this, read (2) and (5) together, and then read (3) and (5) together. Note that in both cases no direct support is offered for the conclusion, though these sentences do seem related to one another. When you find sentences that seem related to the conclusion (usually by the topic), but do not offer any sort of direct support of the conclusion, it is likely that the claim functions as a premise-support, that is, as a direct support of one of the premises as opposed to the conclusion itself. This leads to the fourth rule of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Four:

Any sentence(s) in an argument that does not support the conclusion directly, but rather supports one of the premises is called a premise-support. And that sentence(s) together with the premise that it supports is called a sub-argument.

Q₄:

For each sentence or clause that does not offer direct support for the conclusion, ask: “Does this sentence or clause support a premise?”

First, note that there can be many levels of premise-support. That is, you might have a premise supporting a premise that supports another premise that then supports the over-all conclusion.

Second, often signal words for premises and conclusions (see Rule Three) will be used to signal premise-support, and the premises that are supported.

Third, it is important when you identify a sentence as premise-support that you also identify the premise that it supports.

Thus, for Example B2 we see that (2) is premise support for (1), and that (3) is premise support for (4). So, we can reconstruct this argument as follows:

Example B3: B2 reconstructed

Bush is not the legitimate President (5) because he was not elected by a majority of electors (1), as is required in the Constitution (2), but rather was appointed by the Supreme Court (4). The Supreme Court effectively appointed Bush when it halted the recount of votes in Florida (3).

Note that this reconstruction of the argument is equivalent in meaning and argumentative structure to the original argument presented in B2, but it highlights that structure, perhaps, a bit better.

Now lets look at a slightly longer and more complex example.

Example C

The US should not invade Iraq. First, Iraq poses no credible threat to the US. Iraq’s army is distinctively less well equipped than the US army. Further, it has no means of transport to attack on US soil. The claims that Iraq is developing “weapons of mass destruction” are also not credible. The amount of money, resources, technology, and infrastructure necessary for an effective campaign to develop such weapons is simply lacking in Iraq. Second, a war can only be considered just if it is fought in self-defense. A war fought in self-defense requires an actual act of aggression. Since Iraq has not attacked the United States in any way, a US invasion of Iraq cannot be considered a just war. Third, any attack on Iraq would clearly stir up emotions in an already volatile region, and thus it could lead to a larger regional conflict. Fourth, the US would have to occupy Iraq for some time before a new, more stable regime could be put in place. For these, and many other reasons, the US should not invade Iraq.

Example C is a much longer, and more complex argument. In order to identify its parts we are going to have to move very carefully through the argument and try to see how it works together. Numbering the argument will, as I said above, make this much easier. So, let’s first apply Rule 2. Note that many of these statements are very simple, but there are a few complex ones. The ninth sentence, “Since Iraq has not attacked the United States in any way, a US invasion of Iraq cannot be considered a just war,” is separable into two distinct sentences: “Iraq has not attacked the United States in any way” and “A US invasion of Iraq cannot be considered a just war.” The tenth sentence is also complex. Let’s break it down into its clauses: “any attack on Iraq would clearly stir up emotions in an already volatile region,” and “thus it could lead to a larger regional conflict.” Once again we have two possible sentences here. Now we are ready to assign numbers:

Example C (numbered)

[The US should not invade Iraq. (1)] First, [Iraq poses no credible threat to the US. (2)] [Iraq’s army is distinctively less well equipped than the US army. (3)] Further, [it has no means of transport to attack on US soil. (4)] [The claims that Iraq is developing “weapons of mass destruction” are also not credible. (5)] [The amount of money, resources, technology, and infrastructure necessary for an effective campaign to develop such weapons is simply lacking in Iraq. (6)] Second, [a war can only be considered just if it is fought in self-defense. (7)] [A war fought in self-defense requires an actual act of aggression. (8)] Since [Iraq has not attacked the United States in any way (9)], [a US invasion of Iraq cannot be considered a just war. (10)] Third, [any attack on Iraq would clearly stir up emotions in an already volatile region (11)], and thus [it could lead to a larger regional conflict. (12)] Fourth, [the US would have to occupy Iraq for some time before a new, more stable regime could be put in place. (13)] [For these, and many other reasons, the US should not invade Iraq. (14)]

Applying Rule Three it seems pretty clear that (1) is the primary conclusion of this passage. While there is a signal word, “thus,” in sentence (12) if we look carefully we can see that most of the other sentences in the passage, while related to (12) in no way offer support of (12), and that (12), when read with (1), clearly offers support of (1). We should also note here that (14) does not appear to say anything different from (1). Both make the claim that we should not invade Iraq. In sum, then we can say that (1) and (14) are the conclusion of this argument.

However, why, exactly, should we believe (1)? Why shouldn’t we invade Iraq? As complex as this argument is, the author has provided us with a nice series of hints. She provides numbers to label her primary premises. But, again, we must be careful here. Labeled as “first,” (2) provides a relatively clear reason why we should not invade Iraq: Iraq is not a threat. But, how about (7) which is labeled as “second?” Reading carefully here, we can see that in fact (10) is the “second reason” against invading Iraq. (12) and (13) provide the third and fourth reason respectively. Hence, finishing our application of Rule Three, we find that the conclusion of this argument is that we shouldn’t invade Iraq ((1) and (14)), and that the main premises are (2), (10), (12) and (13).

Now, what do we do with the rest of the sentences? Here is where we apply Rule Four. We must read each sentence clearly and determine if it offers direct evidence for the conclusion, or offers direct evidence for one of the main premises. We will move somewhat slowly through this process. Read carefully and try to follow along.

(2) seems to clearly support (1). Why shouldn’t we invade Iraq? The answer is that Iraq poses no threat to us. But, then, what do we do with (3)? Does the fact that Iraq’s army is decidedly less well equipped than the US army support the fact that we shouldn’t invade Iraq? It doesn’t seem to do so directly. Indeed, one can imagine someone arguing that it is precisely because Iraq’s army is less well equipped that we should invade, since our chance of success is greater. So, (3) does not appear to support (1) directly. So, what do we do with it? Applying Rule Four, we know to ask whether or not (3) offers support of a main premise. We should test this. Let’s read (2) and (3) together. “Iraq poses no threat to the US” and “Iraq’s army is less well equipped than the US army.” Now, these seem connected in some way. What we have here, it seems, is the possibility that (3) is not meant to offer direct support of (1), rather it is intended to offer direct support of (2). To determine if this is the case, lets read (3) and (2) together, reading (3) first, inserting a “thus” and then reading (2) and see if it looks like a workable argument. “Iraq’s army is less well equipped than the US army” thus “Iraq poses no threat to the US.” This seems to work. Hence, it seems reasonable to suppose that (2) is meant to support (1), the over-all conclusion, and that (3) is meant to support (2). Hence, (3) is premise support for (2). Now, what about (4)? It too seems to support (2). The fact that Iraq has no means of transport to attack US soil supports the fact that Iraq is no threat. (5) also seems to support (2). That Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction supports the idea, again, that Iraq is not a threat. What about (6)? (6) does not seem to have an immediate connection to (2). Does it have such a connection to (1)/(14), or does it connect clearly with any of the other main premises? Read it carefully. It seems to be speaking of the same thing that (5) is speaking of, the development of weapons of mass destruction, in fact, it seems to be offering direct support for the fact that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction. If so, then (6) supports (5). We have found a premise support of a premise support here! (6) supports (5) which supports (2) which supports (1)/(14).

Let’s move on to the next group of sentences: (7), (8), (9) and (10). We have already decided that (10) is the main premise here. How do (7), (8), and (9) relate? Reading carefully shows that 7 plus 8 plus 9 supports 10. In other words, why would a war against Iraq be unjust (10)? Because just wars must be in self-defense (7), which requires an actual attack (8), which has not happened (9). Note here that (7), (8), and (9) work together to support (10). It is not the case that we have premise-support of premise-support here, though it might be tempting to read it this way. Remember, the way to check any possible combination is to actually read it back as though it were an argument. Thus to see if (7) offered support of (8) we would merely read “a war can only be considered just if it is fought in self-defense”; thus, “a war fought in self-defense requires an actual act of aggression.” This clearly makes no sense.

Finally, we see as well that (11) supports (12), and that (13) has no support. In response to the question, “Why would we have to occupy Iraq for some time?” the author has provided no answer.

After the application of these rules, we have the following:

1/14 is supported by 2, 10, 12, and 13. 2 is supported by 3, 4, and 5, which is supported by 6. 10 is supported by 7, 8, and 9; and 12 is supported by 11.

B. Missing Premises.

There is another way in which arguments can be more complex and difficult than Example B. Often, for a variety of reasons, arguments are incomplete. That is, often authors will leave out parts of the argument –for brevity, obviousness, or style. It is important, in order to be able to provide an accurate analysis and evaluation of an argument, to be able to identify such missing parts. Generally speaking there are only two parts of an argument that can go missing: premises and conclusions. The trick is figuring out when an argument has a missing piece. This is something that takes time to learn –it is an art rather than a mere technical skill. The more often you practice reading, writing and evaluating arguments, the better you become at it. Let’s look at a few more examples, once again starting out with a simple example, and then moving on to a more complex one.

Example D

American citizens are grossly uninformed about world events (1), so you are probably uninformed about world events (2).

It is pretty clear that D is an argument, and applying Rule Three we can see that the conclusion is that you are probably uninformed about world events (the signal word “so” is one clue). But, why is it probable that you are uninformed about world events? Because “American citizens are grossly uninformed about world events.” At this point you should be somewhat puzzled. While (1) does offer some support for (2) it is pretty clear that this support is incomplete. That is, even if (1) is true, by itself this does not serve to make (2) true. Something is clearly missing. What? Well, ask yourself: “How can I get from (1) to (2)?” What we need, I hope you see, is something that connects “American citizens” and “you.” That is, why are “you “ uninformed? The answer is that, “American citizens are uninformed” and “you” are an American citizen. Hence, what we have here is a missing premise. We can formulate this as the fifth rule of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Five:	A missing premise is any premise that is necessary for the argument to work, but is not explicitly stated.
Q₅:	To determine if you have a missing premise, for each premise (or premise support) that you find, ask the following question: Assuming that this premise is true, does it by itself offer support for the conclusion? If the answer is yes, then you have no missing premise; if the answer is no, then there is a missing premise.
	Note, the question here is not “Does this premise make the conclusion true?” Rather, we are merely asking whether the premise, by itself, offers plausible evidence for the conclusion.

Let’s look at two more relatively simple examples.

Example E

[Bush is the best President of the 21^st century. (1)] [He has responded with grace and strength to the Crisis of 9/11. (2)] [He has shown true integrity in his dealings in office, (3)] and [he is, in fact, the only President we have had, so far, in the 21^st century. (4)]

Applying Rule Three to E, it seems pretty clear that 1 is the conclusion, and that 2-4 are the main premises. There appears to be no premise-support here. So, to determine if there are any missing premises, let’s ask our question of each one of these individually. Does the fact that “he (Bush) has responded with grace and strength to the Crisis of 9/11” offer support by itself for the claim that “Bush is the best President of the 21^st century”? Think about this carefully. We are not asking if both or either of these claims are actually true, we are only asking whether or not, if (2) were true, would that provide plausible evidence for (1)? The answer seems to be yes. If Bush, in fact, responded with grace and strength to the Crisis of 9/11 this does provide plausible evidence for the truth of the claim that Bush is the best President of the 21^st century. It may not be totally convincing, you may object to either claim, or you may claim that “best President” should do more than merely respond with grace and strength, but nonetheless, plausible evidence has been provided. So, there is no missing premise here. Reading carefully, we see that this is true of 3 and 4 as well.

Example F

[France is not a true ally of the United States of America. (1)] [A true ally of the USA would not oppose the interests of the USA. (2)] [Further, a true ally would not defame the US culture (3)], nor [would it defame the President of the USA.(4)] [Finally, a true ally would never make fun of US tourists who don’t speak French with an appropriate accent. (5)]

F, however, is another matter. Applying Rule Three we see that 1 is the conclusion and that 2-5 are supposed to provide evidence for 1. So, let’s ask our question. If it is true that a “true ally of the USA would not oppose the interests of the USA (2)” does this by itself provide plausible evidence that “France is not a true ally of the USA (1)”? Clearly there seems to be a missing link between (2) and (1). Even if (2) is true, we still need to show that France in fact has opposed the interests of the USA. Nowhere in the argument is this claim made. In fact, while this argument lays out four conditions of being a true ally of the USA (2-5), it never provides any evidence that France does not meet these criteria. Hence, there are at least four missing premises here. We need to know: a) that France has opposed the interests of the USA; b) that France has defamed US culture; c) that France has defamed the President of the USA; and d) that France makes fun of US tourists’ poor attempts to speak French. It may be that all of these things are true, but nowhere are these claims made in the argument itself –hence they are missing premises, and this argument cannot work to support the conclusion without these premises.

Note that when I was identifying the missing premises in G I wrote them out as complete sentences. This is an important part of identifying missing premises. And, there is another rule to use here: rule six of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Six:	When formulating a missing premise you must try to be fair to the argument you are identifying and analyzing. Try to articulate the most plausible and clear premise possible.
Q₆:	When articulating missing premises ask yourself: Am I being fair to the intent of the author? Am I making the argument weaker or stronger through my wording? (Always try to make the argument stronger.)

This is the bulk of argument identification and analysis. Here we have articulated all of the major component parts of any argument: conclusion, main premises, premise support and missing premises. There are only two more minor points to make before we move on to analyzing the structure of an argument.

C. Non-Functional Claims and Concession Claims.

The first point is that often arguments will be embedded in potentially stylistically pleasing, but otherwise extraneous remarks. In other words, there will often sentences that perform no function in the argument. These are known as non-functional claims. To discover these apply Rule Seven of argument identification and analysis.

Rule Seven:	Identify which of the sentences do not play a role in the argument. They are neither premises nor conclusions (nor supporting premises).
Q₃:	For each sentence or clause ask: Does this sentence support the conclusion? Does it support another premise? If the answer is no to each, then it is a non-functional claim.
	A non-functional claim does not move the argument forward in any sense, it does not offer any evidence, nor provide a conclusion.

The second point to make is that often arguments, made by people who are particularly conscientious and careful will include claims that suggest a possible weakness or difficultly associated with accepting their conclusion. These claims literally count against the thesis or conclusion in some manner. Such claims are known as concession claims. Here we get Rule Eight of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Eight:	Any claim made that seems to work against the conclusion, or that seems to directly contradict the conclusion is known as a concession claim.
Q₈:	For any claim you suspect is a concession claim ask: Does this claim contradict the thesis?

Concession claims are primarily important when evaluating the over-all strength and weakness of an argument. An argument that recognizes potential contrary claims or opinions is generally speaking a stronger argument than one that does not.

4. Casting

Now that we have identified and analyzed an argument into its component parts, we must focus on the relation that holds between the parts of the argument –specifically, between the premises (both main and support) and the conclusion. This process, of bringing into relief the structure of an argument’s evidence is known as casting. Once again, learning how to cast takes a great deal of time and practice. Generally speaking it is a simple procedure, but when applied to long and complicated arguments (particularly those with numerous levels of premise support and/or missing premises) it can get difficult. The difficulty stems from keeping things straight in the argument –what is what, and what is related to what. There are two things that can help allay such difficulty.

First, numbering is singularly important as a tool for simplifying, and hence keeping straight the different parts of an argument. This is equally true of simply going through the steps of the analysis that I outlined above. If you have completed this process carefully and correctly, casting an argument is really a simple affair.

Second, you should notice that as I was working through the arguments above, one thing I kept doing was going back and re-reading the argument in different orders and configurations. This process of reading and re-reading an argument is essential to the practice of critical thinking, and I might add, to learning and living in general. Any time you are unsure of a particular answer you are giving –whether something is a missing premise, premise support, conclusion, or main premise, the easiest way to determine this is to simply re-organize what you are testing and read it. If it works, then you have good reason to accept it. This should be formulated, not as a rule, but as a general hint for identification and analysis:

Hint One:

Whenever you are engaged in the process of analysis, take the time to read and re-read the argument carefully in different orders and configurations. For example, if you are wondering whether some statement (1) supports another statement (3), simply read them together as if they were an argument: (1) thus, (3). Then ask, “Does it make sense?” “Does it work as an argument?”

Working slowly and with care is essential to this process. But, the more you practice, the faster your work will go.

Arguments are generally structured along two basic lines: the evidence works in a series in its support of the conclusion, or the evidence works in a chain in its support of a conclusion. It is possible that one argument can make use of both structures within the over-all framework of the argument. But, let’s take some simple cases first. Note that the question we are asking here is: “How does the evidence provide support for the conclusion?”

Example G

[Invading Iraq is justifiable. (1)] [It is justifiable since Iraq has long thwarted American interests (2)] and [Iraq continues to pose a serious threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. (3)] [Further, America can invade anyone it wants to. (4)]

This is a simple argument with which you might disagree. But, before we engage in an evaluation, we must first understand how this argument works. We should proceed in order, although I have already numbered the sentences and phrases.

Applying Rule Three it seems clear that (1) is the general conclusion here. Moreover, (2), (3), and (4) each provide evidence for (1). Examining these premises we see that none appear to function as premise-support, so Rule Four is not necessary. Now, let’s apply Rule Five and see if there are any missing premises. First, read (2) and (1) together. As it stands this combination seems to work without any major difficulty. That is, the fact that Iraq has long thwarted American interests can be taken directly as evidence justifying an invasion of Iraq. Clearly there are some presuppositions and assumptions being made here, but nothing that is necessary for the argument to work. The same is true for the other combinations of sentences. So, there are no missing premises here.

The question, now, is how the evidence works to provide support for the conclusion. To determine this we apply the following rules: Rules nine and ten of argument analysis and identification:

Rule Nine:	If each premise functions independently to provide support for the conclusion, then you cast the argument with straight lines connecting the conclusion to the premises or the premises to their premise support. This is called a “series” of evidence.
Q₉:	Ask yourself, for each premise, can this premise work by itself to supply support for the conclusion? Does this premise need any one of the other premises in order for it to function as evidence? If this answer to this question is no, then you have a series of evidence.
Rule Ten:	If any premise requires the other premises or some other (missing) premise to provide support for the conclusion, then you cast the argument with a bracket and a + sign between the premises that need to be grouped together. This is referred to as a “chain” of evidence.
Q₁₀:	Ask yourself, for each premise, can this premise work by itself, or does it need the other premises to supply support? If the answer is that the premises need one another, then you have a chain of evidence.
Hint 2:	It is possible, remember, that you will have complicated arguments that make use of both chains and series, and also that you can have a series of chains.

Go back to Example G. We have already discovered that each of the premises actually works independently of the other premises in order to provide support –it was for this reason that we discovered that there were no missing premises. Given this we have here a series of evidence. Thus, we cast this argument in the following manner:

Casting Example G

This is a relatively simple example of a series of evidence. What is important about this is that here we can clearly see the way in which the evidence “holds up” the conclusion. Note that because of the manner in which the evidence supports the conclusion removing any one of the premises here does not fundamentally damage the over-all argument. It certainly does weaken the argument, but it does not make movement from the remaining premises to the conclusion impossible. As we shall see, this is not true of chains. Take another example:

Example H

Since [a just war is a war fought in self-defense (1)], and [self-defense means a response to an overt act of aggression (2)], and [Iraq has offered no overt act of aggression (3)], [an invasion of Iraq will not be a just war (4)].

Analyzing this argument we find first that (4) is the conclusion and that (1), (2), and (3) are the premises. Further, applying Rules 4-5 we find that there are no sentences that function as premise-support, and no missing premises. So, to cast this argument we need merely to discover whether this is a chain or a series. The easiest way to do this is to merely read the premises independently in connection with the conclusion and see if they offer any support. “A just war is a war fought in self-defense” (1) therefore, “an invasion of Iraq will not be a just war” (4). It is clear here that (1) cannot support (4) alone –something more is needed. Go through this and what you should find is that (1), (2) and (3) all need one another in order to support (4) –none can work without the others for this end. So, we cast I as a chain.

Casting Example H

Looking at the structure of evidence here we can see that if we remove any one of the three premises the other two premises will no longer provide support for the conclusion. If we take out (1), (2) and (3), while interesting, will not provide evidence for (4). The same is true for the other premises. These premises work interdependently to support the conclusion. This is the ultimate difference between a series and a chain, and provides us with an important understanding of how to go about evaluating and refuting such arguments. We will look more closely at this later in the semester, but I will say a few words now just so you understand the importance.

When we want to evaluate and/or refute an argument that is supported by a series we have to realize that in order to completely disprove the argument we will have to disprove each one of the premises individually –the more we knock out, the weaker the argument becomes, but a complete refutation requires a systematic, one-by-one approach to the premises. With a chain, however, we need only take out one of the premises to effectively refute the whole argument.

There are a number of variations that the structure of a argument can take, and we still need to see how to cast premise support and missing premises, so we need to look at a few more examples.

Example I

[We should be not eat meat. (1)] [We have a duty to not cause needless harm to others (2)], and [eating meat causes needless harm to others. (3)] [We should not pollute our bodies, (4)] and [eating meat pollutes our bodies. (5)]

Analyzing this argument we see that (1) is the conclusion, and that (2)-(5) are the main premises. Once again there are no missing premises and no premise support offered here. But, now the question is: How do the premises support the conclusion? If we read carefully we see that (2) clearly needs (3) to support (1); but neither (2) nor (3) require or depend upon (4) or (5). Further, it is clear that (4) and (5) need one another to offer support to (1) but do so independently of (3) and (2). Read these over to yourselves to see this. So, when we cast the argument it will look like this:

Casting I

Note here that what we have is a series of chains. Now let’s look at another example.

Example J

[This US is creating an unstable world by acting unilaterally and with wanton disregard for the interests and needs of other peoples and countries. (1)] [Since creating instability in the world is morally wrong (2)], and [what is morally wrong should be opposed (3)], [the US should be opposed in its unilateral actions. (4)] [The US has acted unilaterally in its opposition to the Kyoto accords (5)], and [it has acted unilaterally in its efforts to open markets in the South Pacific. (6)] Finally, [the US is acting without regard for the interests of other countries in its threatened invasion of Iraq. (7)] Moreover, [any action or series of actions that cause unnecessary harm and suffering to others is morally wrong. (8)] [Creating instability clearly causes unnecessary harm and suffering to others. (9)] [Witness the suffering of those caught up in the regional conflicts US intervention causes. (10)]

This is a much longer a more complex argument than any of those above. Go through this example and analyze it according to Rules 3-4. It may be difficult to see, at first, but (4) is the over-all conclusion of this argument. The point that K makes is that the US should be opposed in its unilateral actions. All of the other claims go to support this either directly or indirectly. Reading carefully we see that (1), (2) and (3) all go to support (4) directly. Moreover, while (1) might be read as offering independent support, when read with (2) and (3) we see that all of these main premises need one another. So, these form a chain. (5), (6) and (7) all seem to offer evidence for (1) –that is, each of these claims detail ways in which the US has acted unilaterally. Notice as well that these claims work independently of one another –they do not require one another to offer support. (8) and (9) seem to offer support of (2); these two claims show why creating instability in the world is morally wrong. Finally, (10) seems to offer support of (9). So, casting this argument we get the following:

Casting J

Note that J makes use of both series and chains in the argument, and has a premise support of a premise support: (10) and (9).

Finally, before leaving this section, we need to look at how to cast a missing premise. This is not too difficult, but in order to keep it clear I will introduce another rule of argument identification and analysis:

Rule Eleven:

When casting a missing premise, use a letter (a, b, c, d,…) and put it in the place where the premise should appear in the argument.

We will look at another example to make this clear.

Example K

[Since terrorism is a crime against humanity (1)], [Osama bin Laden is guilty of a crime against humanity. (2)]

This is a pretty simple example. It seems clear that we cannot get from (1) to (2) unless we make some connection between Osama bin Laden and terrorism. So, we have a missing premise here: (a) “Osama bin Laden is guilty of terrorism,” or perhaps, “Osama bin Laden is a terrorist.” So, casting this argument looks like this.

Casting K

(a) = Osama bin Laden is a terrorist.

Note that K is a chain. This is important. You will never have a missing premise in an argument structure that is not a chain. A series of premises cannot have a missing premise, since all of the premises work independently. Thus, missing premises always fall within chains.

Hint Three:

If you have a missing premise, then that missing premise along with the other premises with which it works, will necessarily form a chain. You cannot have a missing premise cast as part of a series.

Okay, that’s basically it. Practice this.

Summary of the Rules for Argument Identification, Analysis and Casting

The following are a short list of rules (with accompanying “questions” that can aid in the application of these rules) that should help you in working through the “art” of evaluating arguments. In many cases when you are analyzing and evaluating arguments there will be clear “right” and “wrong” answers; however, there will be situations where the answers will not be clearly right or wrong, but rather will be “better” or “worse.” So, the practice of evaluating arguments involves both the mastery of basic skills, and the “art” of their appropriate application. Both of these can only be acquired through practice and more practice.

Rule One:	To determine whether or not some group or collection of sentences (written or verbal) is in fact an argument we need to determine whether or not someone is trying to persuade us of something using evidence/reason.
Q₁:	Ask yourself, am I supposed to be persuaded to do or believe something here? If so, am I supposed to be persuaded by evidence or something else?
Rule Two:	Put a number by every sentence or clause that can stand as an independent sentence.
Q₂:	For each complex sentence, ask yourself, can each clause of the sentence stand as an independent, complete sentence (with little or no modification)?
Rule Three:	To identify an argument we must be able to determine what the conclusion of the argument is, and what the main premises or evidence is.
Q₃:	Ask yourself, what am I supposed to do or believe? (To determine the conclusion.) Ask yourself, why should I do or believe it? (To determine the main premises.)
	Also, look for various signal words. Words like: hence, so, therefore, in conclusion, and thus often signal the beginning of a conclusion. Words like: because, since, or for often signal the beginning premises or evidentiary statements. See ICT pp 73-74 for more examples of signal words and their use.
Rule Four:	Any sentence(s) in an argument that does not support the conclusion directly, but rather supports one of the premises is called a premise-support. And that sentence(s) together with the premise that it supports is called a sub-argument.
Q₄:	For each sentence or clause that does not offer direct support for the conclusion, ask: “Does this sentence or clause support a premise?”
	First, note that there can be many levels of premise-support. That is, you might have a premise supporting a premise that supports another premise that then supports the over-all conclusion. Second, often signal words for premises and conclusions (see Rule Three) will be used to signal premise-support, and the premises that are supported. Third, it is important, when you identify a sentence as premise-support, that you also identify the premise that it supports.
Rule Five:	A missing premise is any premise that is necessary for the argument to work, but is not explicitly stated.
Q₅:	To determine if you have a missing premise, for each premise (or premise support) that you find, ask the following question: Assuming that this premise is true, does it by itself offer support for the conclusion? If the answer is yes, then you have no missing premise; if the answer is no, then there is a missing premise.
	Note, the question here is not “Does this premise make the conclusion true?” Rather, we are merely asking whether the premise, by itself, offers plausible evidence for the conclusion.
Rule Six:	When formulating a missing premise you must try to be fair to the argument you are identifying and analyzing. Try to articulate the most plausible and clear premise possible.
Q₆:	When articulating missing premises ask yourself: Am I being fair to the intent of the author? Am I making the argument weaker or stronger through my wording? (Always try to make the argument stronger.)
Rule Seven:	Identify which of the sentences do not play a role in the argument. They are neither premises nor conclusions (nor supporting premises).
Q₃:	For each sentence or clause ask: Does this sentence support the conclusion? Does it support another premise? If the answer is no to each, then it is a non-functional claim.
	A non-functional claim does not move the argument forward in any sense, it does not offer any evidence, nor provide a conclusion.
Rule Eight:	Any claim made that seems to work against the conclusion, or that seems to directly contradict the conclusion is known as a concession claim.
Q₈:	For any claim you suspect is a concession claim ask: Does this claim contradict the thesis?
Rule Nine:	If each premise functions independently to provide support for the conclusion, then you cast the argument with straight lines connecting the conclusion to the premises or the premises to their premise support. This is called a “series” of evidence.
Q₉:	Ask yourself, for each premise, can this premise work by itself to supply support for the conclusion? Does this premise need any one of the other premises in order for it to function as evidence? If this answer to this question is no, then you have a series of evidence.
Rule Ten:	If any premise requires the other premises or some other premise to provide support for the conclusion, then you cast the argument with a bracket and a + sign between the premises that need to be grouped together. This is referred to as a “chain” of evidence.
Q₁₀:	Ask yourself, for each premise, can this premise work by itself, or does it need the other premises to supply support? If the answer is that the premises need one another, then you have a chain of evidence.
Rule Eleven:	When casting a missing premise, use a letter (a, b, c, d,…) and put it in the place where the premise should appear in the argument.
Hint One:	Whenever you are engaged in the process of analysis, take the time to read and re-read the argument carefully in different orders and configurations. For example, if you are wondering whether some statement (1) supports another statement (3), simply read them together as if they were an argument: (1) thus, (3). Then ask, “Does it make sense?” “Does it work as an argument?”
Hint Two:	It is possible, remember, that you will have complicated arguments that make use of both chains and series, and also that you can have a series of chains.
Hint Three:	If you have a missing premise, then that missing premise along with the other premises with which it works, will necessarily form a chain. You cannot have a missing premise cast as part of a series.

[1] . ICT stands for An Invitation to Critical Thinking 4^th ed., by Joel Rudinow and Vincent Barry (Harcourt, 2002). This is the text we are using in class and should be a constant reference for your work. What I am doing here is to be used as a supplement, not a replacement, for your reading and studying the text. There is one exception to this: my method of casting is different from the method of casting used by Rudinow and Barry. It is the same as earlier versions of Rudinow and Barry’s casting system and I must admit puzzlement as to why they changed it. Nevertheless, you should be familiar with both forms of casting.

TG Bowen