Introduction: What is an argument?
Thursday, 6 August 2020
12:00
Reading:
These two items will give you an accessible introduction to some of the concepts
and notions that we will be dealing with throughout the course. They are
recommended reading:
* Merrilee H. Salmon, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (sixth edition,
Wadsworth 2012), Chapter 1 (pages 1-46) [Available on the course’s
LEARN webpage]
* A. W. Sparkes, Talking Philosophy: A Wordbook (Routledge 1991), Sections
4.1 to 4.8 (pages 75-84) [Available on the course’s LEARN webpage]
* Luís Duarte d’Almeida, “What is an Argument?” (unpublished typescript,
written specifically for Critical Legal Thinking students) [Available on the
course’s LEARN webpage]
The following items may also be useful:
Elias E. Savellos, Reasoning and the Law: The Elements (Wadsworth 2001)
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 23-30) [Available on the course’s LEARN
webpage]
Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict (sixth edition, Pearson
2012), Chapter 2 (pages 14-27) and Chapter 5 (pages 68- 75) [On reserve
at the Law Library]
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin, Understanding Arguments: An
Introduction to Informal Logic (ninth edition, Cengage Learning 2015), Chapter
1 (pages 3-15) and Chapter 3 (pages 41-57) [On reserve at the Law
Library]
Notes
1. Introduction
Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
Yes, May risk democracy
No, Imprisonment designed to curtail certain civil liberties
1.1
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
1.2
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote ANTECEDENT
1.3
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote CONSEQUENT
1.4
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote
p = criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of offenders
1.5
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote p = criminal sanctions should aim at
the rehabilitation of
,offenders
q = prisoners should be allowed to vote
1.6
If p, then q
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote p = criminal sanctions should aim at
the rehabilitation of
offenders
q = prisoners should be allowed to vote
1.7
1. (1) If p, then q
2. (2) p
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
(3) q
1. (1) If p, then q
2. (2) p
Therefore (from (1) and (2)), (3) q
(premise) (premise)
(conclusion)
1.8
• Premise (1) will be a conditional sentence
• Premise (2) will affirm the antecedent of premise (1) • The conclusion will be the
consequent of premise (1)
Take a minute
2. What is an argument?
1. (1) If p, then q (premise)
2. (2) p (premise)
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
3. (3) q (conclusion)
• This is not an argument: it is the form of an argument
In any argument of this form, the conclusion follows from the premises: what
this means is that if the premises are both true, the conclusion cannot be
false.
That is what we call a valid argument.
(There are many other forms of valid argument.)
2.1
But a valid argument is not necessarily a good one: we also want the premises to
actually be true. Consider:
(1) If today is Friday, then prisoners should be allowed to vote.
(2) Today is Friday.
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
(3) Prisoners should be allowed to vote.
2.2
But a valid argument is not necessarily a good one: we also want the premises to
actually be true. Consider:
(1) If today is Friday, then prisoners should be allowed to vote.
(2) Today is Friday.
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
(3) Prisoners should be allowed to vote.
This is a valid argument but doesn’t mean that the premises are true so not a sound
argument as the premises has no correlation to the conclusion (the antecedent to the
consequent).
Summing up (1/2)
An argument is a group of claims arranged in a particular way.
A group of claims is arranged as an argument when (a) one of the claims
(called the “conclusion”) is treated as controversial (that is, as a claim to be
, demonstrated, argued for), and (b) the other claim(s) (called the
“premise(s)”) are put forth as claims meant to establish the conclusion.
Summing up (2/2)
An argument is valid when the conclusion follows from the premises (in
other words, when the premises imply the conclusion). That means that it is
not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are all true.
A valid argument can have false premises and a true conclusion, or even
false premises and a false conclusion.
The only thing a valid argument cannot have is true premises and a false
conclusion.
A valid argument is sound when all the premises are actually true.
This course
This is a course about arguing, reasoning, and thinking critically about law
Wednesday lectures will be dedicated to collectively discussing practical
examples: you should read the materials in advance of each lectures
Six tutorials (weeks 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11)
One final exam with two components
One optional formative assessment in week 7 (worth 5 bonus marks for
students who get every question right)
Class representative: to be chosen next Wednesday
Lecture 2.
Wednesday, 13 January 2021
Before we start
Remember what we’ve seen on Monday:
An argument is a group of claims arranged in a particular way.
A group of claims is arranged as an argument when (a) one of
the claims (called the “conclusion”) is treated as controversial
(that is, as a claim to be demonstrated, argued for), and (b) the
other claim(s) (called the “premise(s)”) are put forth as claims
meant to establish the conclusion.
Exercise W1.1
“[T]he outcome of litigation should be final. Where an issue has been
determined by a decision of the court, that decision should definitively
determine the issue as between those who were party to the litigation.
Furthermore, parties who are involved in litigation are expected to put
before the court all issues relevant to that litigation. If they do not, they will
not normally be permitted to have a second bite at the cherry.”
How many arguments can you spot in this passage?
— “[T]he outcome of litigation should be final.” — “Why?”
— “Where an issue has been determined by a decision of the court, that
decision should definitively determine the issue as between those who were
party to the litigation.”
• The “Why?” question here is a demand that the arguer show that the claim
is true: it is a request for reasons that show that we should indeed accept
the claim as true. That is what giving an argument involves. This is e "Why?"
of Argumentation.
“[T]he outcome of litigation should be final. Where an issue has been
determined by a decision of the court, that decision should definitively
determine the issue as between those who were party to the litigation.
Furthermore, parties who are involved in litigation are expected to put
before the court all issues relevant to that litigation. If they do not, they will
not normally be permitted to have a second bite at the cherry.”
How many arguments can you spot in this part of the passage?
, Here (third and fourth sentences) the Court could perhaps be
understood to be offering an explanation of why it is that (as a
matter of law) parties involved in litigation are not normally
“permitted to have a second bite at the cherry.”
But this is a different sort of “Why?”
It is the “why” of explanation, not the “why” of
argumentation.
• The difference is not immediately obvious, but it is an
important one.
An explanation assumes that something (the “explanandum”,
that which is to be explained) is true, and specifies its causes; it
purports to show why it is true.
Example: “The reason that Parliament passed this law is that it
wanted to give effect to an EU directive.”
An argument, by contrast, does not assume that the conclusion
is true: rather, it treats the conclusion as a controversial claim,
and purports to demonstrate that it is indeed true.
So when we say “Why?” to ask for an argument, what our
question means is (roughly) “Why should I agree with you that
that claim is indeed true?”
Question: How many arguments can you spot in this passage?
There are two arguments.
No, there are no arguments.
One:
Where an issue has been determined by a decision of the court, that decision should
definitively determine the issue as between those who were party to the litigation.
[T]he outcome of litigation should be final.
Two:
Furthermore, parties who are involved in litigation are expected to put before the court all
issues relevant to that litigation. If they do not, they will not normally be permitted to have a
second bite at the cherry.
Conditional sentence is not enough to have an argument, AN
ARGUMENT IS A GROUP OF CLAIMS (At least two)
Don’t repeat premises in conclusion when making an argument.
Make different premesis that lead to the same conclusion to
PERSUADE.
Exercise W1.2
“If [the defendant] wished to deal with his assets he had to obtain the
permission of the court. Since he failed to do so it follows that he has acted
in breach of the Freezing Order.”
This is clearly an argument. How can we tell?
We can tell that there is an argument from the use of words such as "since"
(reason) and "it follows" (conclusion). "It follows" is a strong indicator that
there is an argument. Not conclusive indicator of argument.
When reconstructing an argument, always start with the conclusion.
If [the defendant] wished to deal with his assets he had to obtain the
permission of the court. Since he failed to do so it follows that he has acted in
breach of the Freezing Order.
Thursday, 6 August 2020
12:00
Reading:
These two items will give you an accessible introduction to some of the concepts
and notions that we will be dealing with throughout the course. They are
recommended reading:
* Merrilee H. Salmon, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (sixth edition,
Wadsworth 2012), Chapter 1 (pages 1-46) [Available on the course’s
LEARN webpage]
* A. W. Sparkes, Talking Philosophy: A Wordbook (Routledge 1991), Sections
4.1 to 4.8 (pages 75-84) [Available on the course’s LEARN webpage]
* Luís Duarte d’Almeida, “What is an Argument?” (unpublished typescript,
written specifically for Critical Legal Thinking students) [Available on the
course’s LEARN webpage]
The following items may also be useful:
Elias E. Savellos, Reasoning and the Law: The Elements (Wadsworth 2001)
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 23-30) [Available on the course’s LEARN
webpage]
Bruce N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict (sixth edition, Pearson
2012), Chapter 2 (pages 14-27) and Chapter 5 (pages 68- 75) [On reserve
at the Law Library]
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin, Understanding Arguments: An
Introduction to Informal Logic (ninth edition, Cengage Learning 2015), Chapter
1 (pages 3-15) and Chapter 3 (pages 41-57) [On reserve at the Law
Library]
Notes
1. Introduction
Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
Yes, May risk democracy
No, Imprisonment designed to curtail certain civil liberties
1.1
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
1.2
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote ANTECEDENT
1.3
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote CONSEQUENT
1.4
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote
p = criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of offenders
1.5
If ___, then ___
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote p = criminal sanctions should aim at
the rehabilitation of
,offenders
q = prisoners should be allowed to vote
1.6
If p, then q
If criminal sanctions should aim at the rehabilitation of
offenders, then prisoners should be allowed to vote p = criminal sanctions should aim at
the rehabilitation of
offenders
q = prisoners should be allowed to vote
1.7
1. (1) If p, then q
2. (2) p
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
(3) q
1. (1) If p, then q
2. (2) p
Therefore (from (1) and (2)), (3) q
(premise) (premise)
(conclusion)
1.8
• Premise (1) will be a conditional sentence
• Premise (2) will affirm the antecedent of premise (1) • The conclusion will be the
consequent of premise (1)
Take a minute
2. What is an argument?
1. (1) If p, then q (premise)
2. (2) p (premise)
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
3. (3) q (conclusion)
• This is not an argument: it is the form of an argument
In any argument of this form, the conclusion follows from the premises: what
this means is that if the premises are both true, the conclusion cannot be
false.
That is what we call a valid argument.
(There are many other forms of valid argument.)
2.1
But a valid argument is not necessarily a good one: we also want the premises to
actually be true. Consider:
(1) If today is Friday, then prisoners should be allowed to vote.
(2) Today is Friday.
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
(3) Prisoners should be allowed to vote.
2.2
But a valid argument is not necessarily a good one: we also want the premises to
actually be true. Consider:
(1) If today is Friday, then prisoners should be allowed to vote.
(2) Today is Friday.
Therefore (from (1) and (2)),
(3) Prisoners should be allowed to vote.
This is a valid argument but doesn’t mean that the premises are true so not a sound
argument as the premises has no correlation to the conclusion (the antecedent to the
consequent).
Summing up (1/2)
An argument is a group of claims arranged in a particular way.
A group of claims is arranged as an argument when (a) one of the claims
(called the “conclusion”) is treated as controversial (that is, as a claim to be
, demonstrated, argued for), and (b) the other claim(s) (called the
“premise(s)”) are put forth as claims meant to establish the conclusion.
Summing up (2/2)
An argument is valid when the conclusion follows from the premises (in
other words, when the premises imply the conclusion). That means that it is
not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are all true.
A valid argument can have false premises and a true conclusion, or even
false premises and a false conclusion.
The only thing a valid argument cannot have is true premises and a false
conclusion.
A valid argument is sound when all the premises are actually true.
This course
This is a course about arguing, reasoning, and thinking critically about law
Wednesday lectures will be dedicated to collectively discussing practical
examples: you should read the materials in advance of each lectures
Six tutorials (weeks 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11)
One final exam with two components
One optional formative assessment in week 7 (worth 5 bonus marks for
students who get every question right)
Class representative: to be chosen next Wednesday
Lecture 2.
Wednesday, 13 January 2021
Before we start
Remember what we’ve seen on Monday:
An argument is a group of claims arranged in a particular way.
A group of claims is arranged as an argument when (a) one of
the claims (called the “conclusion”) is treated as controversial
(that is, as a claim to be demonstrated, argued for), and (b) the
other claim(s) (called the “premise(s)”) are put forth as claims
meant to establish the conclusion.
Exercise W1.1
“[T]he outcome of litigation should be final. Where an issue has been
determined by a decision of the court, that decision should definitively
determine the issue as between those who were party to the litigation.
Furthermore, parties who are involved in litigation are expected to put
before the court all issues relevant to that litigation. If they do not, they will
not normally be permitted to have a second bite at the cherry.”
How many arguments can you spot in this passage?
— “[T]he outcome of litigation should be final.” — “Why?”
— “Where an issue has been determined by a decision of the court, that
decision should definitively determine the issue as between those who were
party to the litigation.”
• The “Why?” question here is a demand that the arguer show that the claim
is true: it is a request for reasons that show that we should indeed accept
the claim as true. That is what giving an argument involves. This is e "Why?"
of Argumentation.
“[T]he outcome of litigation should be final. Where an issue has been
determined by a decision of the court, that decision should definitively
determine the issue as between those who were party to the litigation.
Furthermore, parties who are involved in litigation are expected to put
before the court all issues relevant to that litigation. If they do not, they will
not normally be permitted to have a second bite at the cherry.”
How many arguments can you spot in this part of the passage?
, Here (third and fourth sentences) the Court could perhaps be
understood to be offering an explanation of why it is that (as a
matter of law) parties involved in litigation are not normally
“permitted to have a second bite at the cherry.”
But this is a different sort of “Why?”
It is the “why” of explanation, not the “why” of
argumentation.
• The difference is not immediately obvious, but it is an
important one.
An explanation assumes that something (the “explanandum”,
that which is to be explained) is true, and specifies its causes; it
purports to show why it is true.
Example: “The reason that Parliament passed this law is that it
wanted to give effect to an EU directive.”
An argument, by contrast, does not assume that the conclusion
is true: rather, it treats the conclusion as a controversial claim,
and purports to demonstrate that it is indeed true.
So when we say “Why?” to ask for an argument, what our
question means is (roughly) “Why should I agree with you that
that claim is indeed true?”
Question: How many arguments can you spot in this passage?
There are two arguments.
No, there are no arguments.
One:
Where an issue has been determined by a decision of the court, that decision should
definitively determine the issue as between those who were party to the litigation.
[T]he outcome of litigation should be final.
Two:
Furthermore, parties who are involved in litigation are expected to put before the court all
issues relevant to that litigation. If they do not, they will not normally be permitted to have a
second bite at the cherry.
Conditional sentence is not enough to have an argument, AN
ARGUMENT IS A GROUP OF CLAIMS (At least two)
Don’t repeat premises in conclusion when making an argument.
Make different premesis that lead to the same conclusion to
PERSUADE.
Exercise W1.2
“If [the defendant] wished to deal with his assets he had to obtain the
permission of the court. Since he failed to do so it follows that he has acted
in breach of the Freezing Order.”
This is clearly an argument. How can we tell?
We can tell that there is an argument from the use of words such as "since"
(reason) and "it follows" (conclusion). "It follows" is a strong indicator that
there is an argument. Not conclusive indicator of argument.
When reconstructing an argument, always start with the conclusion.
If [the defendant] wished to deal with his assets he had to obtain the
permission of the court. Since he failed to do so it follows that he has acted in
breach of the Freezing Order.
