18 Arguments III – Overlapping Arguments

Arguments involve one or more claims (premises) from which another (the conclusion) is supposed to follow. In this chapter we’re going to build on the work from the previous chapter on analyzing the structure of an argument, focusing on how to tell when there are multiple sets of premises for a single conclusion, all contained within what is supposed to be a single argument. These we’ll call, for lack of a better term, “overlapping arguments.”

So, first consider this short argumentative essay:

These days, young children often spend many hours a week in front of a screen, whether playing games, watching videos, or whatever. Often the content they look at includes advertisements directed at children, which will make them want to get the products they see. This can put pressure on parents to buy things they don’t want to buy, just to keep their kids happy. Some studies show that the more screen time young children get, the shorter their attention spans will become as they grow older. But as they grow older, they need long attention spans for the work they will have to do in school and in their jobs. So, all in all, it’s clear that young children should get as little screen time as possible.

The claim being argued for (the conclusion) is clear: Young children should get as little screen time as possible. The rest of the paragraph gives reasons *why* you should believe that claim, i.e., it provides premises. (Keep in mind that we’re not here concerned with whether any of the claims made are actually true or not; this is purely an example to help you see how arguments are often structured.)

If you were asked to outline the argument as that process was described in the last chapter, you’d get something like this:

Now, note that the issue of exposure to advertisements actually has nothing to do with the issue about attention spans. You could easily talk about one without ever mentioning the other. That means that there are actually two separate lines of reasoning going on in the paragraph, one about attention spans, and one about advertisements. If we want to analyze and evaluate the argumentation in this paragraph, then, we must isolate these lines of reasoning and write out two distinct arguments.

These are overlapping arguments, i.e., arguments which share a single conclusion, but whose premises differ. (You could also have arguments that share premises but that yield different conclusions, but we won’t worry about them here.)

A lot of arguments you will find in the real world are like this (as the examples in the last chapter, taken from your short project from the previous module, showed). Multiple but independent reasons (premises) will be given to back up a single claim (conclusion).

Indeed, when you are asked to make an argument of your own, you will probably try to think up every reason you can that will support it, and include all those reasons in your writing. Longer essays, in particular, will often have individual paragraphs that each have self-contained arguments, each of which supports the same conclusion.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does make things complicated when it comes time to evaluate how good the reasoning is:

• If you are reading someone else’s argument, you have to not only identify premises and conclusion, you have to figure out which premises go together and which do not. Once you’ve done that, you can then analyze the quality of reasoning in each (which you’ll learn to do in subsequent chapters).
• On the flip side, if you are creating an argument of your own, you need to be clear in your own mind and in the writing you produce about which claims go together and which don’t. If you just throw everything out there all in one lump, you will be more prone to leaving things out or making logical mistakes – i.e., to being confused without realizing you are.

So, the next work to do is some exercises looking at paragraphs like the one above. And as you do more writing of your own as we go, you’ll be asked to see if you are yourself making overlapping arguments.