Richard L Epstein
Page 27
president of the Utah Bankers association. "But too few women meet the stringent
qualifications boards of directors and banking regulators demand in top-level banking
executives at publicly held companies," he said.
"The regulatory environment does not allow a bank to look past safety and soundness
issues for the sole purposes of achieving diversity," Headlee said.
The Salt Lake Tribune, August 12, 2001
49. Adolescents who are emotionally unprepared engage in sex with serious consequences
for their ability to form normal attachments later in life. Young people who are ignorant
of sexually transmitted disease risk not only their immediate health but their lives by
engaging in sexual intercourse. Over half of young women in America become pregnant
before they are 20. For these reasons we should not only teach the mechanics of
sexuality but also encourage young people to refrain from sexual intercourse.
50. Zoe: Dr. E, you have to pass Suzy.
Dr.E: Why?
Zoe: She said if you don't she's going to light herself on fire in the student union.
51. How can you doubt Dan's advice about getting a Jeep? He's only 25 and he already has
an income over $150,000 a year.
52. (Contributed by a student)
Student athletes should not be given special leniency in assigning course marks. Student
athletes who do receive special leniency turn out to be failures. They are not given the
mental challenge that regular students are given. All student athletes that I have ever
met or seen that have received special leniency have not graduated from college. In
order to make something of yourself, you must first graduate from college. Everyone
that I have ever met or seen wants to make a good living and make something of
themselves. On the other hand, all of the student athletes I know that do not receive
special leniency have graduated and have been successful in life. Therefore, student
athletes that want to be successful in life must not receive special leniency.
53. Smoking is disgusting. It makes your breath smell horrid. If you've ever kissed
someone after they smoked a cigarette, you feel as though you're going to vomit.
Besides, it will kill you.
54. Lee: Every computer science major is a nerd.
Maria: None of the cheerleaders are majoring in computer science.
Lee: Exactly—none of them are nerds.
Short A rguments for Analysis 219
55. I resent that. Our company is not racist. We give a donation to the NAACP every year.
56. Suppose this patient really does have hepatitis. Well, anyone who has hepatitis will,
after a week, begin to appear jaundiced. Yellowing of the eyeballs and skin will proceed
dramatically after two weeks. So if he has hepatitis now, since he's been feeling sick for
two weeks, he should be jaundiced. But he isn't. So he doesn't have hepatitis.
57. (Summarizing a discussion heard on National Public Radio)
An experiment is being conducted to study temperature changes in the ocean using very
low-frequency sound waves that will be generated in the South Pacific and picked up
near the Arctic Circle. The sound waves will be generated two times a day for ten years.
The interviewer, speaking to one of the people involved in the experiment, said
that perhaps we shouldn't do this, since we don't know the effect of the sound on
whales. The experimenter replied that the ocean is already so full of sound, if you count
all the acousticians vs. all the supertankers, the supertankers would win hands down.
58. Zoe: {Monday) If you eat that candy bar, then you'll gain weight.
Dick: {Friday) I gained weight again this week.
Zoe: So you ate that candy bar on Monday.
59. Lee: It's odd. None of the bartenders here have ever been women.
Zoe: But this is a union shop—all of them have been union members. So it looks like
the union won't accept women.
60. Zoe: If you don't start helping around the house, doing the dishes and cleaning up,
then you don't really understand what it means to be a part of a couple.
Dick: O.K., O.K., look, I'm vacuuming. I'll do the dishes tonight.
Zoe: So you do understand what it means to be part of a couple.
61. Professor Zzzyzzx: A dentist I am needing. My teeth they are killing me. That
Dr. Bears, he is O.K., no? I read his advertising all the time.
Dr. E: Don't go to him. I went to get a chipped front tooth fixed, and he kept me
waiting an hour in the chair, and then wanted to sell me teeth whitening and
a very expensive cap for the tooth. I got up and left. I ended up going to
Dr. Hay, and he just filed the tooth down and it cost $60. It's been just fine.
62. Zoe: Boy, is Suzy down about her fight with Tom. If she goes out tonight, she'll
get drunk. Why not call her and invite her for dinner?
Dick: Too late. Manuel told me on the phone that she's already blotto.
Zoe: So she did go out.
63. Lee: All felines cough up hair balls.
Manuel: But ferrets don't cough up hair balls.
Lee: Which is just what I thought. Ferrets aren't felines. They're more like dogs.
64. Tom: I can't believe you're an hour late!
Suzy: What are you talking about?
Tom: You said you'd meet me here at 7 to work on the English assignment.
Suzy: I am not late.
Tom: It's almost 8.
Suzy: I said I'd be here a little after 7.
220 SHORT ARGUMENTS
65. Manuel: There's Sam. Let's ask him to get us a drink.
Maria: Only bartenders and managers are allowed behind the bar in this restaurant.
Manuel: But Sam's a manager, so he's allowed behind the bar.
66. Maria: That's awful. How can you eat a steak?
Suzy: Huh?
Maria: You should be a vegetarian. I've been to those factory farms where they
"raise" cattle and pigs. They're awful.
Suzy: But I like steak. I just won't visit any factory farms.
67. You should not take illegal drugs. They can kill you. If you overdose, you can die. If
you share a needle, you could get AIDS and then die. If you don't die, you could end up
a vegetable or otherwise permanently incapacitated. By using drugs you run the risk of
getting arrested and possibly going to jail. Or at least having a hefty fine against you.
Although some think the "high" from drugs is worth all the risks, the truth is that they
are addicted and are only trying to justify supporting their habit.
68. Doctor: You're going to have some serious heart problems if you don't start watching
your fat intake, learn to relax, and get more exercise.
Professor Zzzyzzx: That is just your opinion.
69. Beer has lots of vitamins and protein, so it can't be bad for my liver.
70. Lee: I read that almost all people who graduate from college end up earning more than
$38,000 per year.
Tom: So the guy in charge of maintenance who gets such a great salary must have
graduated from college.
71. Lee: Every cat sheds hair on its master's clothes. No question about it.
Suzy: Dr. E doesn't have a cat. So he doesn't have cat hair shed on his clothes.
72. To some Afghan commanders, the recent U.S. offensive against the Al-Qaida fighters in
eastern Afghanistan failed because most of them got away. .. .
"Operation Anaconda . . . is an incredible success," said Maj. Bryan Hil
ferty,
spokesman of the 10th Mountain Division. "It took only 20 terrorists to kill 3,000 of the
world's citizens in the World Trade Towers. We've killed hundreds and that means
we' ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This is a great success."
Kathy Gannon, Associated Press, March 17, 2003
73. Mom: Well, what do you think? Did man evolve from cells and apes, or did God
create man?
Zoe: I don't know.
Mom: Come on. You've got to have thought about it.
Zoe: Oh, I guess I have, just never very hard. Beats me.
Mom: You've got to believe one side or the other. Which is it?
74. Driving without wearing a seat belt is not dangerous or I would have been hurt a long
time ago.
75. Dick: I can't believe that Failing in Atlanta didn't win an Oscar.
Zoe: Nobody understands what art is.
Complex
Arguments
for Analysis
The Structure of Arguments 221
• Exercises on the Structure of Arguments 225
Examples of Analysis 226
• Complex Arguments for Analysis 233
The Structure of Arguments
In this section we'll first look at the structure of more complex arguments than the
ones you've seen so far. Then we'll analyze some longer passages. This will lead to
a general outline of how to proceed in analyzing more complex arguments.
In many arguments, we support one premise from which we derive others,
leaving as little as possible to be taken without support, creating a subargument.
But it's not always obvious what the structure of the argument is. For example:
Whatever you do, don't take the critical thinking course from Dr. E. 1
He's a really tough grader, 2 much more demanding than the other professors
who teach that course. 3 You could end up getting a bad grade. 4
I've numbered every sentence or clause that might be a claim. But 1 isn't a claim,
so we rewrite it as "You shouldn't take the critical thinking course from Dr. E."
We can rewrite 3 as "He's much more demanding than the other professors who
teach that course." Now what is the structure of this argument? There aren't any
indicator words.
It seems to me that 1 is the conclusion. Why? If someone believed 2, 3, and
4, then he or she would have some reason to believe 1. Not awfully good reason,
since some unstated premise(s) is needed to make the argument strong or valid. But
it makes sense to say, "You shouldn't take the critical thinking course from Dr. E
because he's a really tough grader"; while it seems silly to say, "You shouldn't take the critical thinking course from Dr. E, therefore he's a really tough grader."
When there are no indicator words ask:
• If I believed this claim, would I have more reason to believe that one?
• Can I put one of therefore or because between these two claims?
221
222 COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
If it's not clear which claim is meant to support which other, that's a fault of
the argument. In this argument, even with the conclusion identified, we still have
two ways to interpret it:
(X) Dr. E is more demanding than the other professors who teach that course.
Therefore, he's a really tough grader.
Therefore, you could end up getting a bad grade.
Therefore, you shouldn't take the critical thinking course from Dr. E.
(Y) Dr. E is more demanding than the other professors who teach that course,
and he's a really tough grader.
Therefore, you could end up getting a bad grade.
Therefore, you shouldn't take the critical thinking course from Dr. E.
To choose between these, we can use the Guide to Repairing Arguments to
make the argument valid or strong. For (X) we'd need an unstated premise like:
(Almost) anyone who's more demanding than other professors who teach
critical thinking is a really tough grader.
That's plausible. For (Y) we'd need something like:
If you take critical thinking from someone who's more demanding than
other professors who teach that course and who is a really tough grader,
then you could end up getting a bad grade, a
(We can use numbers for claims in the original argument and lowercase letters for
claims we add.) That's a lot more plausible. It looks like (Y) is a better choice,
though we still need a prescriptive claim to get from 4 to 1. We can use:
You shouldn't take any course in which you might get a bad grade, b
That's what we need, even though it's not obviously true. In the end, then, this
argument is only as good as the unsupported prescriptive premise b.
Even if there's no one right way to interpret this argument, that doesn't mean
there aren't wrong ways. If you said that 4 supports 2, that would be wrong.
Sometimes people use several premises hoping the combined weight of them
will somehow bring about the conclusion. For example:
The Structure of Arguments 223
These are separate premises meant to support the conclusion. But someone who
likes cats could just say "So?" after each of 1 through 4. Compare:
Cats smell bad. 1
Anything that smells bad is unpleasant, a
Cats kill songbirds. 3
Anything that kills songbirds is nasty, b
Thus, cats are nasty and unpleasant creatures. 5
Here it's not just piling up "facts" to support the conclusion. Claim a is the glue that links 1 to the conclusion; claim b is the glue that links 3 to the conclusion.
Some people think it's fine to give an argument with many independent
premises supporting the conclusion: Here are lots of reasons to believe the
conclusion—if you don't like this one, take that one. I've got a bag full of 'em.
That may convince some folks, but it shouldn't convince you. You're sharp
enough to spot that after each independent premise you could ask, "So?" If it's not
linked to the conclusion, the argument is still weak. When someone keeps piling up
reasons with no glue, it just means you have to ask "So?" more often. It doesn't
make the argument strong.
Here's how Tom analyzed the structure of two arguments in his homework.
The dogcatcher in this town is mean. I He likes to kill dogs. 2 He is overzealous,
picking up dogs that aren't really strays. 3 Some people say he beats the dogs. 4
So the position of dogcatcher should be eliminated. 5
Argument? (yes or no) Yes.
Conclusion: The position of dogcatcher should be eliminated.
Additional premises needed? If someone likes to kil dogs, picks up dogs that
aren't really strays, and beats dogs, then he is mean, a
If someone is mean, he shouldn't be dogcatcher. b
Identify any subargument: 2, 3, and 4 are independent and support I.
Then I supports the conclusion, 5.
Good argument? Looks good to me.
You haven't Been critical enough. The argument is really pretty bad. first, I agree that
2,3, and 4 are independent, You can say they support 1, But 1 is vague and no
improvement on 2,3, and 4. I think it's too vague to be a claim. We do need something
like your a. 'Butfor that we need a further premise, one you're always overlooking:
"If people say that the dogcatcher beats dogs, then he does beat dogs." And that's pretty dubious. So instead of a, let's take: "if someone likes to kill dogs and picks up dogs
> that aren't strays, then he should not be a dogcatcher." That's true. "But that doesn't get you the conclusion. What you then need is "If the person who is now dogcatcher
shouldn't be dogcatcher, then the position of dogcatcher should be eliminated." And
that is implausible. — Still, it's just your first try.
224 COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments. / Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for
education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our
democratic society. 2 It is required in the performance of our most basic public
responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. 3 It is the very foundation of good citizenship. 4 Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust
normally to his environment. 5 In these days, it is doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an
education. 6 Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it,
is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. 7
From Justice Warren's opinion in Brown v. Board of Education
347 U.S. 483 (1954), ending racial segregation in public schools
Argument? (yes or no) Yes.
Conclusion: When the state undertakes to provide education, it must be made
available to all on equal terms.
Additional premises needed? Something like "If 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then 7."
Identify any subargument: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are independent and support the
conclusion, 7.
Good argument? All the premises look plausible, and it's valid with the new
premise. So it's good. Anyway, it was good enough for the Supreme Court.
A good job of rewriting the conclusion to make it clear. 'But these premises aren't alt
independent. Here 2,3, 4, and 5 are meant to support 1, and they need an additional
premise: "If school attendance is mandatory and a Lot of money is spent on education,
and if education is the foundation of good citizenship, and if it is a principal
instrument in awakening the child to cultural values and preparing him for
professional training and adjusting him to his environment, then education is the most
important function of state and local governments." It pays to write out the