Ch 3. What is a good argument

Five Criteria of a Good Argument

An argument consists of a claim supported by at least one other claim, but not all arguments are good arguments. A good argument must meet the following five criteria:

1. Well-formed structure

   • The argument should be logically organized and clearly structured.
   • Premises should connect to the conclusion in a coherent and logical manner.

2. Relevant premises

   • The premises must be directly related to proving the truth of the conclusion.
   • Irrelevant premises weaken the argument and should be excluded.

3. Acceptable premises

   • The premises should be reasonable and credible to a rational person.
   • Unverified, biased, or implausible premises undermine the argument.

4. Sufficient grounds for the conclusion

   • The premises must collectively provide enough justification for accepting the conclusion.
   • A single weak premise may not be enough to support a strong conclusion.

5. Effective rebuttal to anticipated criticisms

   • The argument should address and counter serious objections.
   • A failure to rebut criticisms leaves the argument vulnerable.

Assessing Argument Quality:

• Arguments can vary in strength—some faulty arguments are less flawed, and some good arguments are better than others.
• The application of these five criteria is often a judgment call, as relevance, acceptability, sufficiency, and rebuttal strength exist in degrees.
• Guidelines exist to help apply these criteria effectively in argument evaluation.

The Structural Principle

• Definition:
  • A good argument must meet fundamental structural requirements to ensure logical coherence.
  • It must not contain contradictions, assumptions of the conclusion, or invalid deductive inferences.

Key Structural Requirements:

1. The Argument Must Be Logically Formed

   • Deductive arguments: The conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises.
   • Inductive arguments: The conclusion must be probable based on the premises.

2. Premises Should Support the Conclusion

   • The premises should be more likely to be accepted than the conclusion.
   • If accepted, the premises should lead to a reasonable acceptance of the conclusion.

3. Avoiding Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

   • The premises must not assume the truth of the conclusion.

   • Example of a flawed argument:

     Capital punishment is moral (conclusion)
     because capital punishment is morally justified. (premise)

   • This provides no independent support for the conclusion.

4. Avoiding Contradictory Premises

   • If premises contradict each other, any conclusion (even absurd ones) could follow.

   • Example of a flawed argument:

     Capital punishment is morally acceptable (premise A)
     because capital punishment is morally wrong. (premise B)

   • Premise A (moral) contradicts Premise B (immoral), making the argument invalid.

5. Avoiding Contradictory Conclusions

   • A conclusion must not contradict any of the premises.

   • Example of a violation of the law of noncontradiction:

     All government policies should protect human rights. (premise)
     The death penalty violates human rights. (premise)
     Therefore, the death penalty is justified. (contradictory conclusion)

   • The conclusion contradicts the premises, making the argument structurally unsound.

6. Following Rules of Deductive Logic

   • Example of an invalid conversion:

     All potatoes are vegetables. (true)
     → All vegetables are potatoes. (false conversion)

   • Universal statements (All X are Y) cannot be reversed (All Y are X).

Key Questions for Evaluating Argument Structure:

• Does the argument provide at least one premise that logically supports the conclusion?
• Do any premises assume the conclusion instead of proving it?
• Do any premises contradict one another?
• Does the conclusion contradict any of the premises?
• If the argument is deductive, does it violate any known rule of deductive logic?

Conclusion:

• A structurally flawed argument fails as an argument, as it cannot guide beliefs or decisions.
• Careful analysis of argument structure ensures logical consistency and validity.

The Relevance Principle

• Definition:
  • An argument should include only relevant premises, meaning premises that provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
  • A premise is relevant if accepting it counts in favor of the conclusion.
  • A premise is irrelevant if accepting it has no bearing on the conclusion’s truth.

Assessing Premise Relevance

1. Relation to Other Premises:

   • Sometimes, a premise’s relevance becomes clear only when additional premises are introduced.
   • Example: A lawyer may introduce seemingly unrelated evidence but later connect it to the case.

2. Reconstructing an Argument:

   • Identify and remove irrelevant material, especially in informal discussions.
   • Determine whether a statement is intended as a supporting reason or simply background information.
   • If a claim is meant to support the conclusion, include it—even if later analysis reveals it as irrelevant.

Relevance in Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments

• Deductive Arguments:

  • If properly structured, the conclusion necessarily follows from its premises.
  • In such cases, the premises are automatically relevant, as they contain the conclusion implicitly.

• Inductive Arguments:

  • The conclusion follows probabilistically from the premises.
  • The relevance of premises depends on how well they support the conclusion and whether they meet other criteria of a good argument.

Ways Arguments Violate the Relevance Principle

1. Using Irrelevant Appeals:

   • Appeal to common opinion (“Most people believe it, so it must be true.”)
   • Appeal to tradition (“This is how it has always been done.”)

2. Using Irrelevant Premises:

   • Drawing the wrong conclusion from the premises.
   • Using premises that do not logically support the conclusion.

Key Questions to Determine Relevance:

1. Would the premise being true make the conclusion more likely to be true?

   • Yes → The premise is probably relevant.
   • No → The premise is probably irrelevant.

2. Even if true, should the premise influence the conclusion?

   • Example: Does a movie’s box office success determine its artistic quality?
   • No → The premise is irrelevant.
   • Yes → The premise is relevant.

Conclusion:

• Relevance is crucial for argument strength—irrelevant premises waste time and weaken reasoning.
• Applying the relevance principle ensures that arguments remain focused, logical, and persuasive.

The Relevance Principle

• Definition:
  • An argument should include only relevant premises, meaning premises that provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
  • A premise is relevant if accepting it counts in favor of the conclusion.
  • A premise is irrelevant if accepting it has no bearing on the conclusion’s truth.

Assessing Premise Relevance

1. Relation to Other Premises:

   • Sometimes, a premise’s relevance becomes clear only when additional premises are introduced.
   • Example: A lawyer may introduce seemingly unrelated evidence but later connect it to the case.

2. Reconstructing an Argument:

   • Identify and remove irrelevant material, especially in informal discussions.
   • Determine whether a statement is intended as a supporting reason or simply background information.
   • If a claim is meant to support the conclusion, include it—even if later analysis reveals it as irrelevant.

Relevance in Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments

• Deductive Arguments:

  • If properly structured, the conclusion necessarily follows from its premises.
  • In such cases, the premises are automatically relevant, as they contain the conclusion implicitly.

• Inductive Arguments:

  • The conclusion follows probabilistically from the premises.
  • The relevance of premises depends on how well they support the conclusion and whether they meet other criteria of a good argument.

Ways Arguments Violate the Relevance Principle

1. Using Irrelevant Appeals:

   • Appeal to common opinion (“Most people believe it, so it must be true.”)
   • Appeal to tradition (“This is how it has always been done.”)

2. Using Irrelevant Premises:

   • Drawing the wrong conclusion from the premises.
   • Using premises that do not logically support the conclusion.

Key Questions to Determine Relevance:

1. Would the premise being true make the conclusion more likely to be true?

   • Yes → The premise is probably relevant.
   • No → The premise is probably irrelevant.

2. Even if true, should the premise influence the conclusion?

   • Example: Does a movie’s box office success determine its artistic quality?
   • No → The premise is irrelevant.
   • Yes → The premise is relevant.

Conclusion:

• Relevance is crucial for argument strength—irrelevant premises waste time and weaken reasoning.
• Applying the relevance principle ensures that arguments remain focused, logical, and persuasive.

The Acceptability Principle

• Definition:

  • A good argument must have acceptable premises—reasons that a mature, rational person would accept based on available evidence.

• Why “Acceptability” Instead of “Truth”?

  1. Argumentation relies on achieving acceptance: Convincing someone of the premises makes them more likely to accept the conclusion.
  2. Absolute truth is difficult to establish: Many premises cannot be proven with certainty, so the focus is on what is reasonable to accept.
  3. Ordinary language supports “accepted as true”: Courtroom witnesses, for example, testify to what they believe is true, not necessarily absolute truth.
  4. Practicality matters: Even if a premise were absolutely true, it might not be accessible to an audience (e.g., too technical to understand).

Standards of Premise Acceptability

A premise should be acceptable if it meets at least one of these seven conditions:

1. Common knowledge: A claim that is widely accepted and undisputed (e.g., “Aspirin reduces fever”).
2. Personal experience or observation: A claim confirmed by direct experience.
3. Defensible claim: A claim that is either defended within the argument or can be verified by a reliable source.
4. Uncontested eyewitness testimony: A claim from an eyewitness that has not been challenged.
5. Uncontroverted authority: A claim from a relevant and credible expert that has not been seriously disputed.
6. Conclusion of another good argument: If a previous strong argument supports the claim, it is reasonable to accept it.
7. Reasonable minor assumption: A claim that seems plausible and does not need extensive proof in the given context.

• Example:
  • “Drinking coffee is bad for your health” does not meet the first criterion (common knowledge) because experts disagree on its health effects.
  • “Aspirin reduces fever” does meet the criterion because medical experts widely agree on it.

Conditions of Premise Unacceptability

A premise should not be accepted if it meets any of these five conditions:

1. Contradicts credible evidence or authority: A claim should not oppose well-established knowledge without strong justification.
2. Conflicts with personal experience: A claim that contradicts what people generally observe should be questioned.
3. Lacks defense and cannot be verified: If a claim isn’t defended in the argument and no reliable source can support it, it is unacceptable.
4. Self-contradictory or unclear: If a claim contradicts itself or is too vague to understand, it cannot be accepted.
5. Based on an unwarranted assumption: If a claim relies on an unstated but questionable assumption, it is unacceptable.

• Example of an Unacceptable Premise:

  Since 30% of divorces happen because people marry too young,
  states should raise the minimum marriage age to stabilize marriage.

  • Problem: There is no known evidence that 30% of divorces result from marrying young.
  • Violates Condition #3 (lacks defense and cannot be verified).

Evaluating Acceptability in Arguments

When assessing whether a premise meets the acceptability principle, ask:

• Would a mature, rational person accept this premise without serious question?
• Is the premise clearly stated and understandable?
• Does the premise rely on an unstated assumption that a rational person would reject?

By applying these standards and conditions, one can determine whether an argument’s premises are acceptable and, ultimately, whether the argument is a good one.

The Sufficiency Principle

• Definition:
  • A good argument must provide enough relevant and acceptable evidence to justify the conclusion.
  • The number, type, and weight of premises must be sufficient to support the claim.

Key Challenges in Applying the Sufficiency Principle

1. Lack of Universal Guidelines:

   • Different contexts require different sufficiency standards (e.g., choosing a political candidate vs. buying a car).
   • Some fields, like statistics, have clear sufficiency criteria, but informal discussions often do not.

2. Disagreements Over Evidence Weight:

   • People assign different importance to pieces of evidence.
   • Many disputes arise because participants disagree on what evidence is most convincing.
   • Agreement on relative weight of evidence is key to resolving arguments.

3. Experience Matters:

   • The more one evaluates arguments, the better one develops a sense of what constitutes sufficient evidence.
   • Example:
     • Children think “I want it” is a sufficient reason to get something.
     • Experienced real estate buyers know what evidence is sufficient to justify a good investment.

Ways Arguments Violate the Sufficiency Principle

1. Too Small or Unrepresentative Sample:

   • Example: “Everyone loves this movie!” (based on only a few opinions).

2. Anecdotal Evidence:

   • Example: “My uncle smoked his whole life and never got cancer, so smoking isn’t harmful.”

3. Faulty Causal Analysis:

   • Example: “Crime rates increased after new streetlights were installed, so streetlights cause crime.”

4. Missing Crucial Evidence:

   • Example: Arguing that “vegetarian diets are the healthiest” without considering nutritional deficiencies.

Key Questions to Test Sufficiency

1. Are the given reasons, even if relevant and acceptable, enough to justify the conclusion?
2. Is the evidence flawed due to faulty causal analysis?
3. Is crucial evidence missing that would be necessary to accept the conclusion?

By applying the sufficiency principle, one ensures that an argument is not only well-structured, relevant, and acceptable but also strong enough to justify belief in its conclusion.

The Rebuttal Principle

• Definition:
  • A strong argument must anticipate and effectively rebut serious criticisms against it or the position it supports.
  • Failure to address counterarguments weakens an argument, regardless of its structure, relevance, acceptability, or sufficiency.

Why Rebuttal Is Essential

1. Arguments Exist in a Context of Disagreement

   • Arguments are typically presented because there is another side to the issue.
   • A good argument must engage opposing views directly rather than ignoring them.

2. Only One Contradictory Conclusion Can Be True

   • If two opposing arguments appear strong, they cannot both be correct.
   • The argument that best withstands counterarguments is likely the stronger one.

3. Failure to Rebut Leads to an Incomplete Argument

   • Many arguments appear strong until objections are raised.
   • Example: A prosecutor’s case may seem convincing—until the defense attorney presents a rebuttal.
   • Without rebuttal, the full picture is missing.

What Constitutes a Serious Challenge?

• A serious challenge is one that a reasonable person would see as damaging enough to require a response.
• Even if the arguer believes they have a response, they must still present it explicitly to persuade others.
• Anticipating and addressing strong objections disarms opponents before they even present their criticisms.

What Makes a Rebuttal Effective?

• A rebuttal is effective if it:
  1. Directly responds to the counterargument.
  2. Weakens or eliminates the force of the criticism.
  3. Would satisfy a rational, mature person applying the Code of Intellectual Conduct.

Common Failures in Meeting the Rebuttal Principle

1. Ignoring or Denying Counterevidence

   • Example: Refusing to acknowledge scientific studies that contradict one’s claim.

2. Misrepresenting the Criticism (Straw Man Fallacy)

   • Example: Arguing against an exaggerated or weaker version of the opponent’s argument instead of the real one.

3. Using Diversionary Tactics

   • Bringing up trivial objections instead of responding to the core issue.
   • Attacking the critic (Ad Hominem Fallacy) rather than addressing their argument.
   • Resorting to humor or ridicule instead of reasoned rebuttal.

Key Questions for Evaluating the Rebuttal Principle

1. What are the strongest arguments against this position?
2. Does the argument effectively address counterarguments?
3. Are there potential weaknesses in the argument that an opponent would point out?
4. Does the argument recognize and respond to these weaknesses?
5. Does the argument demonstrate why opposing arguments are flawed?

By applying the rebuttal principle, we ensure that arguments are thorough, fair, and logically strong, preventing one-sided reasoning that ignores critical objections.

Making Arguments Stronger

• Flawed arguments can often be improved by making amendments based on the five criteria of a good argument.
• Some arguments may be convincing to certain audiences but not others, depending on how readily they accept the premises.
• Below are ways to strengthen arguments based on each criterion:

Structural Criterion

• Convert an inductive argument into a deductive one by adding a general claim that makes the conclusion logically necessary.
• Make implicit premises explicit if they play an important role in the argument.
• Recast the argument in its most concise and clear form to highlight its fundamental parts.

Relevance Criterion

• Remove any irrelevant material that does not contribute directly to the argument.
• Avoid premises that only appear supportive but are actually irrelevant, as critics will expose them and weaken the argument.

Acceptability Criterion

• Use less controversial premises if they achieve the same goal and make the argument more persuasive.
• Soften absolute claims (e.g., change “all politicians” to “most politicians”) to make them more acceptable.
• Clarify vague or confusing language to ensure the premises are understandable to the audience.

Sufficiency Criterion

• Add necessary premises to provide enough relevant evidence for the conclusion.
• Support controversial premises with subpremises if the audience is unlikely to accept them outright.

Rebuttal Criterion

• Address as many criticisms as necessary for the context—some audiences require more extensive rebuttals.
• Acknowledge weaknesses in the argument to show intellectual honesty and reduce the impact of counterarguments.

Limitations

• Some arguments cannot be improved if they defend an inherently weak position.
• In such cases, it is better to abandon a weak argument than to make minor improvements unless required by professional duty (e.g., legal defense).

Applying the Criteria to Arguments

• Goal: Evaluate arguments based on the five criteria of a good argument.
• Key Reminder: The issue is not whether the conclusion is true, but whether the argument justifies belief in the conclusion.

Letter A – Evaluating Governor Reichard’s Performance

Reconstructed Argument:

Since Don LaPlant, the chair of the Democratic Party, says that the Democratic
governor is doing a good job, (premise)
Therefore, Governor Reichard is doing a good job. (conclusion)

Evaluation:

• Structural Criterion: No structural flaws.
• Relevance Criterion: Fails – Don LaPlant is biased as the chair of the governor’s party, making his testimony irrelevant.
• Acceptability, Sufficiency, and Rebuttal Criteria: Fail – The only premise is irrelevant, meaning the argument lacks sufficient support and does not address counterarguments.
• Final Assessment: Not a good argument.

Letter B – Opposing the Seat-Belt Law

Reconstructed Argument:

[Since laws should not require things that endanger our lives,] (implicit moral premise)
and wearing seat belts can endanger our lives, (premise)
because one man’s life was saved when he was not wearing his seat belt, (subpremise)
[Therefore, we should not be required by law to wear seat belts.] (implicit conclusion)

Evaluation:

• Structural Criterion: Well-formed.
• Relevance Criterion: Passes – Premises relate to the conclusion.
• Acceptability Criterion: Fails –
  • The claim that seat belts endanger lives is highly questionable and contradicts credible evidence.
• Sufficiency Criterion: Fails –
  • Anecdotal evidence (one accident case) is not enough to justify a general claim about seat belts.
• Rebuttal Criterion: Fails –
  • No attempt is made to counter the strong arguments in favor of seat-belt laws.
• Final Assessment: Not a good argument.

Letter C – Supporting Alice Morton’s Re-election

Reconstructed Argument:

Since Alice Morton is experienced, (premise)
and she is devoted to the citizens of the county, (premise)
and she is willing and has time to serve, (premise)
and she works hard, (premise)
and she is intelligent, (premise)
and no other person in the Monroe District could do a better job in the office of supervisor, (rebuttal premise)
[Therefore, district residents should vote for Alice Morton.] (implicit conclusion)

Evaluation:

• Structural Criterion: Well-formed.
• Relevance Criterion: Passes – All premises relate to candidate qualifications.
• Acceptability Criterion: Partially fails –
  • The last premise is overstated and likely unprovable (claiming no one else could do better).
• Sufficiency Criterion: Fails –
  • Lacks key information about Morton’s policies, goals, and opponent’s qualifications.
• Rebuttal Criterion: Fails –
  • The rebuttal premise is weak and exaggerated, reducing credibility.
• Final Assessment: Not a good argument.

Letter D – Opposing Funding for a Heimlich Study on Dogs

Reconstructed Argument:

Since the medical staff at State University applied for funding for a study on dogs
to determine if the Heimlich maneuver could save drowning victims, (premise)
and the use of dogs in the study would not help determine this, (premise)
because some people say a dog’s breathing system is not comparable to a human’s, (subpremise)
and Dr. Heimlich has called the experiment “needless” and “cruel,” (premise)
[and experiments that are cruel and not useful should not be performed,] (implicit moral premise)
[Therefore, the American Heart Association should not fund the experiment.] (implicit conclusion)

Evaluation:

• Structural Criterion: Well-formed.
• Relevance Criterion: Fails –
  • The subpremise is weak since it relies on unnamed sources (no expertise confirmed).
• Acceptability Criterion: Fails –
  • The claim that the experiment is useless is questionable, as medical experts would know better.
• Sufficiency Criterion: Fails –
  • Lacks strong evidence proving that dogs cannot provide useful data.
• Rebuttal Criterion: Fails –
  • No counterargument is addressed, especially regarding why the University believes the experiment is valid.
• Final Assessment: Not a good argument.

Letter E – Opposing a Flag-Burning Amendment

Reconstructed Argument:

Since the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, (premise)
and the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is free speech, (premise)
and having unrestricted free speech is more important than restricting peaceful expression, (premise)
and banning flag burning could lead to more free speech restrictions, (premise)
because there are many distasteful ways to criticize the country, (subpremise)
and restricting free speech further would harm democracy, (premise)
[because it would place further limits on speech,] (implicit subpremise)
and flag burning does not seriously harm the country but actually strengthens it, (rebuttal premise)
because criticism leads to positive changes, (subpremise)
and we should not punish people for disrespecting the flag, (rebuttal premise)
[because people are more important than objects,] (implicit subpremise)
and we do not punish people for disrespecting others, (subpremise)
[Therefore, we should not amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning.] (implicit conclusion)

Evaluation:

• Structural Criterion: Well-formed.
• Relevance Criterion: Passes – Premises directly address free speech and legal issues.
• Acceptability Criterion: Passes –
  • The first two premises are facts (Constitution + Supreme Court ruling).
  • The importance of free speech is widely accepted.
• Sufficiency Criterion: Passes –
  • Premises provide ample justification for opposing a flag-burning amendment.
• Rebuttal Criterion: Passes –
  • Directly counters the argument that flag burning harms the country.
  • Uses an analogy (we don’t punish people for disrespecting others, so why punish flag disrespect?).
• Final Assessment: Good argument.

Conclusion: Identifying Strong vs. Weak Arguments

• Only Letter E meets all five criteria of a good argument.
• Most failed due to lack of sufficiency, acceptability, or rebuttal.
• A well-formed argument is only strong if it also provides enough credible, relevant evidence and effectively counters objections.

The Suspension-of-Judgment Principle

• Definition:
  • If no position is supported by a good argument, or if two or more positions are equally strong, one should suspend judgment in most cases.
  • If immediate action is necessary, one should decide based on practical consequences.

When Suspension of Judgment Is Appropriate

1. Lack of Suitable Evidence

   • If there is no strong evidence supporting any position, it is rational to withhold judgment.
   • However, this should not be used to avoid difficult decisions or unfamiliar topics.

2. Equally Strong Arguments

   • This situation is rare, as one argument is usually stronger when judged by the five criteria.
   • If arguments truly seem equal, suspending judgment is reasonable until further evidence emerges.

When Suspension of Judgment Is Not an Option

• Forced or Momentous Decisions
  • Some decisions cannot be delayed (e.g., whether to have an abortion).
  • In such cases, one must decide based on practical consequences rather than waiting for perfect evidence.

Conclusion

• Suspending judgment is valid when evidence is insufficient or arguments are equally strong.
• However, it should not be used to avoid difficult choices.
• If a decision must be made, practical consequences should guide the choice.

The Resolution Principle

• Definition:
  • An issue should be considered resolved if an argument:
    1. Is structurally sound.
    2. Uses relevant and acceptable premises.
    3. Provides sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion.
    4. Includes an effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms.
  • If no opposing argument meets these conditions more successfully, one should accept the conclusion and consider the issue settled.

Why Issues Remain Unresolved

Even when good arguments are available, many disputes continue due to:

1. Cognitive Biases and Emotional Attachments

   • Some people have a blind spot and cannot be objective.
   • Others are emotionally convinced but not rationally persuaded.

2. Rational Carelessness

   • Some individuals fail to think critically or clearly analyze the issue.

3. Hidden Agendas

   • A person may argue for reasons unrelated to the stated issue.

4. Desire to “Win” Rather Than Seek Truth

   • Some participants are more focused on winning the debate than on resolving the issue.

5. Deep Disagreements

   • Opponents may have fundamental, unexamined assumptions that drive their conclusions.

When Should an Issue Be Reopened?

• Resolution is not necessarily permanent.
• An issue should be reconsidered if:
  • New or reinterpreted evidence emerges that was not previously addressed.
• However, rehashing old arguments without new insights violates the resolution principle.

The Obligation to Accept the Best Argument

• In most cases, absolute certainty is impossible.
• Few arguments meet all five criteria perfectly, but:
  • We are obligated to accept the argument that best satisfies them.
  • Otherwise, no issue would ever be settled, as one could always claim there is no absolute proof.
• Example: Courts settle disputes using objective criteria—we should do the same in rational discussions.

Final Thought

• If rational discussion aims to determine what to do or believe, then issues should be settled more often than they are.
• If a strong argument has already resolved an issue, reopening it without new evidence is irrational.
• Good arguments exist for major debates (e.g., flag burning, climate change, gender bias, evolution), yet they continue.
• The failure to resolve these debates often stems from psychological resistance, not a lack of strong arguments.