Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30

GROUP 1

|DEDUCTIVE REASONING|INDUCTIVE REASONING|VALIDITY|TRUTH|PARAPHRASING|DIAGRAM


ARGUMENT|COMPLEX ARGUMENT|

Reasoning is the supreme of highest operation of man, all his operations and powers reach
their cumulative in reasoning and it is this ability to think and to reason that differentiate
man from mortal beings. When man thinks, he thinks when he forms ideas in the first act
which is apprehension. He thinks when he relates ideas and pronounces their relation in
judgement. He thinks when he is able to relate propositions and come up with arguments in
reasoning.

There are two kinds of ReasoningDecuctive and Inductive:

DEDUCTIVE REASONING:

Deduction is a process of reasoning which proceeds from universal or general laws,


principles or statements to particular instances or propositions. An argument is deductive
when the truth of its premises is intended to guarantee the truth of its conclusion.

EXAMPLE:

Since the murderer has very powerful hands,


And since Micah has very weak hands,
It must follow that Micah cannot be the murderer.
The conclusion of a deductive argument can be confirmed by appeal to the premises
themselves. It is impossible for a valid deductive argument to have true premises, valid
procedures and a false conclusion. However a deductive argument with an invalid inference
may have a true conclusion.

EXAMPLE:

All politicians are powerful individuals.


Some powerful individuals are local officials.
Hence, some local officials are politicians.
The conclusion that some local officials are politicians is true but it is not a conclusion
validly drawn from the given premises for the premises commits fallacy of undistributed
middle term. An error in argumentation may occur when we wrongly believe that the
conclusion follow from the premises.

EXAMPLE:

Mark eats at jollibee, he will have a good meal.


But since he will never eat at jollibee.
I must conclude that he will never have a good meal.
The phrase I must conclude indicates that the arguer is arguing deductively. Such
reasoning is faulty. The premises may be true but the conclusion is false, here the truth of
the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Hence, it is invalid.

VALIDITY OF A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

1. The premises are true.


2. The conclusion must follow from the premises.
3. The process by which the conclusion was derived follow the deductive reasoning.

INDUCTIVE REASONING:

A process of reasoning which proceeds from specific or particular instances to the


formulation of general or universal principles of statements. In an inductive argument, true
premises do not necessarily guarantee or yield a true conclusion, even if all premises are
true, the conclusion could be false. Accordingly the conclusion of inductive argument is
usually introduced by phrases like: it is likely that it is probable that it tends to show
that and other similar phrases.

EXAMPLE:

Since Justin had a basketball in his hands, was coming from the basketball court. Dressed in
basketball, was perspiring heavily and was talking about a game with somebody else.

Then it is likely that he had been playing basketball.

The conclusion of the first argument is more likely to be true than false. In the second
argument even if all the premises are true there is still the likelihood that the conclusion is
false.

Reference:

Aguas, J.J. (January 1999). A handbook in basic logic.


There are generally two types of inferential relations that may be identified given any
beliefs system. Corresponding to these types are also two types of arguments.

Deductive

: If you are going to Spain you will need a passport. You are going to Spain. Therefore, you
will need a passport

In this case, the sentences if you are going to Spain you will need a passport and you are
going to Spain are the premises. The term therefore is the indicator of the conclusion
which is the sentence you will need a passport

The distinctive characteristic of deductive arguments involves a stringent type of relation


between the premises and conclusion. Note that if it is true that if you are going to Spain
you will need a passport and is also true that you are going to Spain, necessarily it must
also be true that you will need a passport. The relation between the premises and the
conclusion here is a matter of necessity.

Inductive

: All crows which I have seen are black. I have seen a great many cows. Therefore, all crows
are black.

This type of inference is very commonly used. Note however that even if it is true that all
crows which I have seen are black and it is also true that all crows are black is
necessarily true. The best that can be said is that the conclusion is only probably true. The
relation between the premises and the conclusion here is simply a matter of probability.
Whereas the inference made in a deduction can be said to be self-evident, the inference in
an induction is not self-evident and requires further evidential support in terms of
observations whenever possible.

Deduction: reasoning from general premises, which are known or presumed to be known,
to more specific, certain conclusions.

Induction: reasoning from specific cases to more general, but uncertain, conclusions.
Both deductive and inductive arguments occur frequently and naturallyboth forms of
reasoning can be equally compelling and persuasive, and neither form is preferred over the
other (Hollihan & Baske, 1994).

Deduction Vs. Induction

Deduction:

commonly associated with formal logic.

involves reasoning from known premises, or premises presumed to be true, to a certain


conclusion.

the conclusions reached are certain, inevitable, inescapable.

Induction

commonly known as informal logic, or everyday argument

involves drawing uncertain inferences

based on probabalistic reasoning.

the conclusions reached are probable, reasonable, plausible, believable.

general statement to a specific instance.

The classic example

All men are mortal. (Major premise)

Socrates is a man. (minor premise)

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

The Arellano Law Example


All lawyers passed the Bar, took the Lawyers Oath and Signed in the Roll of Attorneys
before entering into the Practice of Law.

Wendel Dinglasan is a lawyer.

Ergo, Wendel Dinglasan passed the Bar, took the Lawyers Oath and Signed in the Roll of
Attorneys before entering into the Practice of Law.

The above are examples of a syllogism.

Deduction

It is the form or structure of a deductive argument that determines its validity

the fundamental property of a valid, deductive argument is that if the premises are true,
then the conclusion necessarily follows.

The conclusion is said to be entailed in, or contained in, the premises.

Example:

If you commit crime then you will be penalized

Murder someone then you will be put to jail.

In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is compelled by known facts.

Deduction is often expressed in the form of a syllogism, in which a conclusion is inferred


from two known premises.

Another Example:

All students of law are diligent.

Art Lukban is a student of law.

Therefore, Art Lukban is diligent.

In deductive reasoning
First you have the major premise, which is usually a broad and generally applicable truth;
here, All students of law are diligent.

Then you have the minor premise, which is usually a more specific and narrowly applicable
fact; here, Art Lukban is a law student.

And the conclusion is true as a consequence of the premises; here, that Art Lukban is
diligent.

Principle behind syllogism

What is true of the universal is also true of the specific.

In deductive reasoning, we reason from the general to the particular, so it is essential that
the general statement is a universal truth.

All men must have equal protection of laws.

Ivan Guevarra is a man.

Therefore, he must enjoy the equal protection of laws.

The statement, some men are tall does not allow you to deduct that if Socrates is a man,
then he must be tall.

Or

Few lawyers are experts of laws on violence against women.

Jenke Fabi is a lawyer.

Therefore, she is an expert of laws on violence against women.

This is a flawed or erroneous syllogism.

The Major Premise is not a universal truth using few some

Unfortunately, legal writing is replete with flawed syllogisms.


So Dont anchor your own arguments in flawed syllogisms. Otherwise, the conclusion
decision will be flawed or erroneous.

That is why in Deductive Reasoning

Syllogism: An argument composed of two statements or premises (the major and minor
premises), followed by a conclusion.

For any given set of premises, if the conclusion is guaranteed, the arguments is said to be
valid.

If the conclusion is not guaranteed (at least one instance in which the conclusion does not
follow), the argument is said to be invalid.

DO NOT CONFUSE TRUTH WITH VALIDITY!

Other examples of Deductive Reasoning :

All students eat pizza.

Claire is a student at ALS.

Therefore, Claire eats pizza.

All athletes work out in the gym.

Barry Bonds is an athlete.

Therefore, Barry Bonds works out in the gym.

All students of Legal Technique and Logic are brilliant.

Francesca is a student of Legal Technique and Logic.


Therefore, Franchesca is brilliant.

All law professors are over 7 feet tall.

Mr. Laygo is a law professor.

Therefore, Mr. Laygo is over 7 feet tall.

The argument is valid, but is certainly not true.

The above examples are of the form

If p, then q. (major premise)

x is p. (minor premise)

Therefore, x is q. (conclusion)

Major Premise: The right to due process is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Minor Premise: The assurance of an impartial court and right to be hard are protected by
the due process of law.

Conclusion: Therefore, the assurance of an impartial court and right to beard are
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Words to watch for include: some, certain, a, one, this, that, sometimes, many, occasionally,
once or somewhere.

Marbury v. Madison:

The Judicial Departments province and duty is to say what the law is.

The Supreme Court is the Judicial Department.

Therefore, the Supreme Courts province and duty is to say what the law is.

Important:
As students of Law we must identify syllogisms when reading cases and use syllogisms in
our outlines and on exams.

More on deductive reasoning.

Legal arguments often consist of several syllogisms which build on one another, known as
polysyllogisms.

Examples:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

All mortals die. Socrates is mortal. Therefore Socrates can die.

People who can die are not gods. Socrates can die. Therefore Socrates is not a god.

All women are protected by law. Felixa is a woman, Therefore, Felixa is protected by law.

All women have rights. Felixa is a women. Therefore, have rights.

People who have rights are protected by law. Felixa have rights. Therefore, all who have
rights are protected by law.

As students of law and future lawyers, we should ensure that all deductive arguments are
supported by sound syllogisms.

Generic model we can use in criminal cases, as a starting point, to create our own
syllogisms:

[Doing something][violates the law.]

[The defendant][did something.]

[Therefore the defendant][violated the law.]

Syllogisms are tools to help you evaluate and tighten your legal analysis.
They are useful in outlining your arguments or deconstructing the arguments of others.

But to be logically sound, our arguments do not need to be expressed through syllogisms.

Induction

By contrast, the form or structure of an inductive argument has little to do with its
perceived believability or credibility, apart from making the argument seem more clear or
more well-organized.

The receiver (or a 3rd party) determines the worth of an inductive argument

Inductive Reasoning

Involves going from a series of specific cases to a general statement. The conclusion in an
inductive argument is never guaranteed.

Example:

What is the next number in the sequence 6, 13, 20, 27,

There is more than one correct answer.


Heres the sequence again 6, 13, 20, 27,

Look at the difference of each term.

13 6 = 7, 20 13 = 7, 27 20 = 7

Thus the next term is 34, because 34 27 = 7.

However what if the sequence represents the dates. Then the next number could be 3 (31
days in a month).

The next number could be 4 (30 day month)

Or it could be 5 (29 day month Feb. Leap year)

Or even 6 (28 day month Feb.)

The difference:

inductive reasoning uses patterns to arrive at a conclusion (conjecture)

deductive reasoning uses facts, rules, definitions or properties to arrive at a conclusion.


EXAMPLES

Every recitation has been easy. Therefore, the test will be easy.

The professor cited old cases t in the last few classes. Therefore, the professor will refer to
old cases in the midterm exams.

Every semester there was no one who fails in her class. Therefore, no one will fail this
semester.

When you cannot rely on universals or settled law to provide a major premise to compel
your conclusion, you need to build your own major premise through inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning by generalization uses several specific facts to create a theory that
explains relationships between those facts and supports your conclusion.

Plato was a man and Plato was mortal.

Julius Caeser was a man and Julius Caeser was mortal.

Barack Obama is a man and Barack Obama is mortal.

Rody Duterte is a man and Rody Duterte is mortal.

EJ Pajaro is a man and EJ Pajaro is mortal.

Therefore, all men are mortal.

Mark studies law every day and is a good student.

Zed studies law every day and is a good student.

Danny studies law every day and is a good student.

Good students study every day.

Inductive reasoning by generalization

To use inductive reasoning successfully, we need to ensure that supporting facts represent
an appropriate sample size and are representative.
With inductive reasoning, we can never be certain that our conclusion is true, but through
our supporting facts, we should be able to establish that our conclusion is highly probable.

Inductive reasoning by analogy

Another form of inductive reasoning common in law is analogy, in which we make one-to-
one comparisons and draw similarities between two different things.

Rather than reasoning from the general to the specific (deductive reasoning) or from the
specific to the general (generalizations), analogy requires reasoning from the specific to the
specific.

Analogy is a common part of everyday life and legal practice.

For instance, I am a lawyer and I find LawPhil to be useful to my practice, so I assume other
lawyers will find LawPhil useful to their practice, as well.

Formula for an INDUCTIVE analogy:

A has characteristic Y.

B has characteristic Y.

A also has characteristic Z.

Because A and B both have characteristic Y, we conclude that B also shares characteristic Z.

A passed the Bar exams.

B passed the Bar exams.

Those who passed the Bar are excellent.

Because A and B passed the Bar exams therefore we conclude that A and B are excellent.

To use analogy in law, therefore

establish similarities between two cases;

(2) announce the rule of law embedded in the first case;

and (3) apply the rule of law to the second case.


James Reid was sentenced for 10 years by the SandiganBayan on the grounds of graft and
corruption.

Alden Richard is committed graft and corruption.

Therefore, he if found guilty, he will be sentenced for 10 years.

Use of inductive reasoning to Law Students

Current cases

Established precedent applied to new factual scenarios Critical to judicial opinions

How does it work?

Establish similarity between two cases (issues)

Identify the rule of law (held) in the first case

Apply the rule of law to the second case

Process of reasoning from particular to particular

The reasoning process becomes more about establishing or debunking the similarities
between the two cases

Example

Case 1: Lawyer was disbarred due to moral turpitude.

Case 2: Lawyer abandons family for another girl.

Will he merit disbarment?

Successful analogy depends on the relevancy of the comparison.

It is therefore important to detail the similarities between the cases and to acknowledge
their differences.
Establish the relevant similarities outweigh the relevant differences and therefore the
outcomes should be the same.

SANDWICH CONCLUSION

Inductive reasoning - Think of it like a

We start with specifics and move to generalities

Deductive reasoning think of it like a

We start with generalities and move to specifics.

Validity

An argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logical possible situation in which all of its
premises are true and its conclusion false.

To say that an argument is VALID is just to say the it is necessary that if the premises are
true; then the conclusion is true.

To say that an argument is VALID is just to say that it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false while the premises are true.

it is necessary that There is a necessary connection between the premises and the
conclusion of a valid argument.

Validity is not about the actual truth or falsity of the premises and the conclusion, but
rather, it is about the RELATIONSHIP between the premises and the conclusion.

An argument can be valid even though all of its premises are false

All squares are dogs. (False)


All dogs are rectangles. (False)

So, all squares are rectangles. (True)

An argument can be valid even though its conclusion is false

Every Western student has four legs. (False)

Everything that has four legs has three legs. (True)

So, every Western student has three legs. (False)

All triangles are three-sided figures. (True)

All three-sided figures are circles. (False)

So, all triangles are circles. (False)

An argument can be valid even if there is falsehood all the way through it

All electrons are elephants. (False)

Obama is an electron. (False)

So, Obama is an elephant. (False)

Some dogs are cats. (False)

All cats say Merry Christmas. (False)

So, some dogs say Merry Christmas. (False)

An argument can have all true premises and a true conclusion and yet not valid

Some Filipinos have hiked the Mount Makiling. (True)


Some Filipinos have hiked the Mount Pulag. (True)

So, some Filipinos have hiked both the Mount Makiling and Pulag (True)

An argument is valid even if we dont know whether all the premises are true

All mothers over 90 have agespots.

Her mother is over 90.

So, her mother has agespots.

Take note

Validity has to do everything with an arguments form, and almost nothing to do with the
actual content of the premises and the conclusion. It is not important what the premises
and the conclusion actually say to determine whether an argument is valid or not.

If we know the truth values of the premises and the conclusion, this can help us
determine whether an argument is valid or invalid only in one case: when the
premises of an argument are true, and its conclusion is false, that argument is
invalid.

Any other combination of truth and falsity with regards to the truth-values of the
premises and the conclusion will not tell us whether that argument is valid or not.

A valid argument need not have true premises

Neither of the premises of those arguments are true. Nor are their conclusions. But
the premises are of such a form that if they were true, then the conclusion would
also have to be true, in both (1) and (2). Hence the arguments are valid
Validity has to do with the logical form of arguments rather than the truth of the
prepositions it contains.

TRUTH

Truth and Falsity Validity and Invalidity

attributes of individual attributes of arguments


propositions or statements

I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositionstrue premises and a true
conclusion:

All mammals have lungs.

All whales are mammals.

Therefore all whales have lungs.

II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositionsfalse premises and a false
conclusion:

All four-legged creatures have wings.

All spiders have exactly four legs.

Therefore all spiders have wings.


This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be
true alsoeven though we know that in fact both the premises and the conclusion of this
argument are false.

III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositionsall their premises are true, and
their conclusions are true as well:

If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy.

I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.

Therefore I am not wealthy.

The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true premises. This will be
seen more clearly when the immediately following illustration is considered.

IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion.

This is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (III) in form, changed only
enough to make the conclusion false.

If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill Gates would be wealthy.

Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.

Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.

The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false.

Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid
argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:

All fishes are mammals.

All whales are fishes.

Therefore all whales are mammals.


The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it may be validly inferred
from these two premises, both of which are wildly false.

VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.

Therefore all whales are mammals.

From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot tell from the fact that an
argument has false premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or invalid.

VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositionsfalse premises and a
false conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.

Therefore all mammals are whales.

These seven examples make it clear that there are:

a. valid arguments with false conclusions (Example II)

b. invalid arguments with true conclusions (Examples III and VI)

Hence it is clear that the truth or falsity of an arguments conclusion does not by itself
determine the validity or invalidity of that argument.

PARAPHRASING COMPLEX STATEMENTS

Compound statements may be built up from statements which are themselves compound
statements.

In paraphrasing and symbolizing complex statements, it is best to proceed systematically, in


small steps. As one gets better, many intermediate steps can be done in one's head. On the
easy ones, perhaps all the intermediate steps can be done in one's head. Still, it is a good
idea to reason through the easy ones systematically, in order to provide practice in advance
of doing the hard ones.

The first step in paraphrasing statements is:

Step 1: Identify the simple (atomic) statements, and abbreviate them by upper case
letters.

In most of the exercises, certain words are entirely capitalized in order to suggest to the
student what the atomic statements are. For example, in the statement JAY and KAY are
Sophomores the atomic formulas are J and K.

At this stage of analysis, it is important to be clear concerning what each atomic formula
stands for; it is especially important to be clear that each letter abbreviates a complete
sentence. For example, in the above statement, J does not stand for Jay, since this is not a
sentence. Rather, it stands for Jay is a Sophomore. Similarly, K does not stand for Kay, but
rather Kay is a Sophomore.

Having identified the simple statements, and having established their abbreviations, the
next step is:

Step 2: Identify all the connectives, noting which ones are standard, and which ones
are not standard.

Having identified the atomic statements and the connectives, the next step is:

Step 3: Write down the first hybrid formula, making sure to retain internal
punctuation.

The first hybrid formula is obtained from the original statement by replacing the simple
statements by their abbreviations. A hybrid formula is so called because it contains both
English words and symbols from sentential logic. Punctuation provides important clues
about the logical structure of the sentence. The first three steps may be better understood
by illustration. Consider the following example.

Example 1 (e1) if neither Jay nor Kay is working, then we will go on vacation.

In this example, the simple statements are:

J: Jay is working

K: Kay is working

V: we go on vacation

and the connectives are: if...then (standard) neither...nor (non-standard).

Thus, our first hybrid formula is: (h1) if neither J nor K, then V.

Having obtained the first hybrid formula, the next step is to:

Step 4: Identify the major connective.

Here, the commas are important clues. In (h1), the placement of the comma indicates that
the major connective is if...then, the structure being:

if neither J nor K, then V.


Having identified the major connective, we go on to the next step.

Step 5: Symbolize the major connective if it is standard; otherwise, paraphrase it into


standard form, and go back to step 4, and work on the resulting (hybrid) formula.

In (h1), the major connective is if...then, which is standard, so we symbolize it, which yields
the following hybrid formula.

(h2) (neither J nor K) V .

Notice that, as we symbolize the connectives, we must provide the necessary logical
punctuation (i.e., parentheses). At this point, the next step is:

Step 6: Work on the constituent formulas separately.

In (h2), the constituent formulas are:

(c1) neither J nor K

(c2) V

The latter formula is fully symbolic, so we are through with it. The former is not fully
symbolic, so we must work on it further. It has only one connective, neither...nor, which is
therefore the major connective. It is not standard, so we must paraphrase it, which is done
as follows.
(c1) neither J nor K

(p1) not J and not K

The latter formula is in standard form, so we symbolize it as follows:

(s1) ~J & ~K

Having dealt with the constituent formulas, the next step is:

Step 7: Substitute symbolizations of constituents back into (original) hybrid formula.

In our first example, this yields: (s2) (~J & ~K) V

Once you have a purely symbolic formula, the final step is:

Step 8: Translate the formula back into English and compare with the original
statement.

This is to make sure the final formula says the same thing as the original statement. In our
example, translating yields the following:

(t1) if Jay is not working and Kay is not working, then we will go on vacation.
Comparing this with the original,

(e1) if neither Jay nor Kay is working, then we will go on vacation.

We see they are equivalent, so we are through.

A diagram is a spatial representation of argument. In our diagram of arguments, we adopt


the convention of placing the conclusion of each argument below its premiss or premisses,
we use an arrow as our diagrammatic conclusion-indicator.

Step 1: Identify (circle, underline, etc.) all premise and / or conclusion indicators.

Step 2: Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument.

Step 3: Arrange the numbers on a page with the premises placed above the conclusion(s)
they claim to support.

Step 4: Omit any logically irrelevant statements.

Step 5: Use arrows to mean is offered as evidence for to show relationship of argument
support.

A premise provides independent support for a conclusion when the amount of support it
provides would not be weakened or destroyed by the removal of any other premise in the
argument.
(1)[ Contrary to what many people think, a positive test for HIV is not
necessarily a death sentences.] for one thing,(2)[the time from the development of
antibodies to clinical symptoms averages nearly ten years.] For another, (3)[many report
suggesting that a significant number of people who test positive may never clinical AIDS.]

A premise provides linked support when it works conjointly with another premise to
support the conclusion:

(1)[if an action promotes the best interest of everyone concerned, and violates no ones
rights, then that action is morally acceptable.] (2)[ in at least some cases, active euthanasia
promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights.] Therefore,
(3)[in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable .]

1. In an argument containing three or more premisses, one or more may provide


independent support for the conclusion while two or more of the premisses provide
support only in combination.

Example:

[Desert mountaintops portion of the atmosphere, enabling a stars light to reach a telescope
without having to swim through the entire depth of the atmosphere.](3)[Being dry, the
desert is also relatively cloud-free.] (4)[ The merest veil of haze or cloud can render a sky
useless for many astronomical measures.] make good sites for astronomy] (2)[Being high,
they sit above.

1)[Desert mountaintops portion of the atmosphere, enabling a stars light to reach a


telescope without having to swim through the entire depth of the atmosphere.](3)[Being
dry, the desert is also relatively cloud-free.] (4)[ The merest veil of haze or cloud can render
a sky useless for many astronomical measures.] make good sites for astronomy] (2)[Being
high, they sit above a

2. in an argument one of whose proposition s is not explicitly stated because it is obvious or


taken for granted in the context, that proposition may be represented in the arguments
diagram by a number in a broken circle .

Passage Containing More Than One Argument

Passage contain two or more distinct arguments are contained in a single passage , with
their premisses and conclusions intertwined.

(1)[it is not necessary or convenient that the legislative (branch of government) should be
always in being]; (2)[ it is absolutely necessary that the executives power should be always
in being]; (3)[ there is not always need of new laws to be made]; (4)[ there is always need of
execution of the laws that are made.]

The number of arguments in a passage is determined by the number of conclusions it


contains. So a passage in which two distinct conclusions are inferred from the same
premisses counts as containing two argument.

Example:
(1)Outside the state there can be neither individuals nor groups(political parties,
association, syndicates, or classes). (2)Therefore fascism is opposed to that Socialism which
views the movement of history as the process of class struggle, and (3) analogously it is
opposed to class syndicalism.

A passage contain two arguments in which each conclusion is inferred from the same pair
of premisses.

Example:

(1)[To hasten the social revolution in England is the most important object of the
International Workingmens Association.](2)[ The sole means of hastening it is to make
Ireland independent.] Hence (3)[ the task of the International is everywhere to put the
conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground,] and (4)[everywhere to side
openly with Ireland]

The arrangement of two or more arguments in the same passage occur when the
conclusion of one argument is also the premisses of another.

Example:

Because (1)[the greatest mitochondrial variations occurred in African people,] scientist


conclude that (2)[ they had the longest evolutionary history,] indicating (3)[ a probable
African origin for Modern human]
(1)[The very success of jukus (cram course for Japanese elementary student ) in training
youngster to pass exams has made the competition worse]; (2)[ jukus help more students
pas exams,] So (3)[ the exams have to be made more difficult to screen out the student]

Find the main conclusion first

Pay close attention to premise and conclusion indicators.

Remember: sentences containing the word and often contain two or more separate
statements.

Treat conditional statements (if-then) and disjunctive statements (either-or) as single


statements.

Dont number / diagram any sentence that is not a statement.

Dont diagram irrelevant statements.

Dont diagram redundant statements.

Complex Argumentative Passages

Analyzing passages, in which several arguments are interwoven, with some


propositions serving as both premises and subconclusions while other propositions serve
only as premises, and still others are repeated in different words, can be a challenge. More
than one plausible interpretation may be offered, and in that case more than one diagram,
can reasonably be used to show the logical structure of that passage. 1

I. Complex Argument
A complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or
conclusions (or both). Complex arguments are very common because many issues
and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand
complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning
involved.2

II. Steps in Evaluating Complex Argument3

1. Identify the issue or question at hand

2. Identify the conclusion of the main argument

3. Identify the premises of the main argument

4. Conduct and evaluative analysis of the inference expressed in the main


argument and the relevance of the main argument to the issue at hand

5. Repeat steps 1 to 4 for each of the subsidiary argument that lend support to
the main premises

6. Make a final evaluation


III. Analyzing Complex Argumentative Passages

Many arguments are simple, but some are quite complex. The premises of an
argument may support its conclusion in different ways. The number of premises and
the order of the proposition in an argument may vary.

A passage from one of the letters of Karl Marx to Friedrich Engles:

(1) To hasten the social revolution in England is the most important object of the
International Workingmen's Association. (2) The sole means of hastening it is to
make Ireland independent. Hence it is (3) the task of the International everywhere
to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and (4)
everywhere to side openly with Ireland.

The number of arguments in a passage is generally agreed to be determined by the


number of conclusions. Thus, because there are two conclusions in this passage, it
contains two arguments. Hence, however, both conclusions are inferred from the
same two premises.4

A diagram exhibits this structure: