17 Arguments II: Argument Structure; Arguments vs. Explanations

We’re going to focus in this chapter on some strategies for identifying the structure of an argument. After that, we’re going to shift gears and think about explanations, for these are another important thing we use claims for, and they can sometimes be confused with arguments.

1. Argument Structure

So, as you now know:

• An argument is a set of claims (the premises) given to support or justify another claim (the conclusion).

You’ve already seen a number of examples of arguments in the previous chapters and in your homework. Here are a few more, mostly much shorter examples, which will let us more easily think about argument structure than some of the longer ones you’ve seen before. These and lots of the other examples we will work with will have two premises, but keep in mind that there’s no set number of premises an argument has to have. Some have one, some two, some more than that.

The structure of an argument refers to its different parts and how they are related, i.e., the premises, the conclusion, and the order in which they occur.

How do you identify the structure?

• When faced with an argument, always try to identify the conclusion first.
  • This means asking: what is this passage most basically trying to convince me of?
  • If it’s well composed, there will only be one conclusion, while there could be many premises (though there doesn’t have to be more than one).
  • But, as these examples show, the conclusion can be at the beginning of an argument, at the end, or, sometimes, in the middle.
  • Indicator words can help: see below for more on those.
• To identify the premises, ask: what reasons is it giving me to make me think that the conclusion is true?
  • They may not be good reasons, in your view, or they may not ultimately be enough logically to yield the conclusion. But that doesn’t matter when you are just trying to identify the structure of the argument.
  • Indicator words can help: see below for more on those.
• For both conclusion and premises, make sure that each is a single claim.
  • Remember, claims and sentences are not the same thing. A sentence can have more than one claim, so you have to be careful to separate them out. For example, in the previous sentence, there are two claims: “A sentence can have more than one claim,” and “you have to be careful to separate them out.” Note that the first is non-evaluative and the second evaluative. Since there are different standards for assessing evaluative and non-evaluative claims, it’s important to separate them.
  • In general, if a sentence involves a conjunction (“and” or “but”), or it is broken up by one of the indicator words below, then it has multiple claims you can separate when you are trying to figure out what the premises are and what the conclusion is.
  • On the other hand, some complex sentences cannot be broken up. If a sentence has two claims joined by “or,” or if it has two linked by “if…then…”, then it should be kept as a single (but complex) claim. For example, look at the previous sentence. It has three claims in it: (1)  “a sentence has two claims joined by ‘or'”; (2) “it has two linked by ‘if…then…'”; and (3), “it should be kept as a single (but complex) claim.” But the sentence as a whole is an “if…then…” sentence, and within the part that goes with “if” are the first two claims, joined by “or.” That’s pretty complex! If you split it up into the separate claims, you would lose its meaning.
  • For most of your work, I’m going to keep the examples much simpler, as I want you to learn the main ideas about argument structure. We’ll do a little bit in the next Module with complex claims.

As noted above, there are certain indicator words that are often used to signal parts of an argument. Here are some of the most common ones:

Let’s take our above examples and find their structure. As a first step, we identify the conclusions. These are underlined, and indicator words are in bold.

Once you have identified premises and conclusion, the next thing to do is to outline the argument. This means rewriting it so that the conclusion is at the bottom and the premises are numbered and listed separately above it.

Here are what the above arguments look like when outlined. Note that each premise as well as the conclusion is a distinct claim. Also note that indicator words have been omitted from those claims.

For each of these arguments, you are then in a position to identify any hidden/implicit premises. A later chapter will talk about that. And once you’ve done that, you can evaluate it whether the argument is successful (valid and sound).

2. Arguments and Explanations

Claims are the building blocks of arguments, but not everything built out of claims is an argument. Another important thing we do with claims is offer explanations. Explanations are easy to confuse with arguments, so we need to spend a little time thinking about what they are and how they are different.

• An explanation is a series of claims that explains why or how something is the case. By contrast, an argument establishes that something is the case.

Here are some simple examples of explanations, with what is being explained — the “explanandum” — underlined. That which does the explaining is called the explanans.

(“Explanandum” and “explanans” are Latin words. The fact that we still use Latin terms here  — and elsewhere, as you’ll see — has to do with the fact that the study of logic and reasoning goes back to ancient times, and Latin was the shared standard language of European scholars well into the modern era.  Only in the 20th century did this really change, and by then terminology such as this had been adopted into English. The same is true of the law, which retains a huge number of Latin terms.)

On the face of it, these look a lot like arguments, including using some of the same indicator words. And, for one of them, the explanandum is actually the same claim that figures as a conclusion in one of the example arguments.

Let’s put these two side by side, so that you can see the difference.

In the first, the argument, the task is to establish that Shockey robbed the bank. (I didn’t! I swear I’m innocent!) Evidence to support the truth of that claim is offered by the premises.

In the second, the explanation, by contrast, it is assumed that Shockey did in fact rob the bank. In other words, the work of argument has already been done. This is then taking the further step of explaining why he did the thing the argument proves he did (robbed the bank).

Once you know what you’re dealing with, argument or explanation, you will need to ask different questions.

For an argument, the question will be: do the premises give good reason for thinking the conclusion is true?

For an explanation, the question will be whether the explanans is adequate, whether there are better alternatives, etc.

What counts as a good explanation will depend entirely on the specifics of the topic involved. As you take other classes, particularly in the natural and social sciences, you are learning how explanation works in those areas.

This is connected to something you should all be on the lookout for in your own writing, as you work to construct arguments. This is the tendency to substitute explanations for how to implement a course of action or policy for reasons for why to do so. You’ll later be asked to come up with your own argument for a particular policy, expressed in an evaluative claim. Suppose the claim you want to argue for is this:

• Doctors should treat their patients with respect.

An argument for this claim should say why doctors should treat their patients with respect. Very often when I give this sort of assignment, however, instead of premises that show why respect is important, I will see claims such as: “Doctors should see their patients in a timely manner,” “they should answer all questions patients have,” and “they should make sure their support staff is friendly and welcoming.”

All of these claims explain how to show respect to patients. They don’t say why respect is important in the first place. They assume it is.

So, be careful: don’t substitute an explanation when an argument is needed!