3

THE LANGUAGE OF ARGUMENT

Using the techniques developed in Chapter 2, this chapter will examine the use of lan-
guage to formulate arguments and will provide methods to analyze genuine arguments
in their richness and complexity. The first stage in analyzing an argument is the dis-
covery of its basic structure. To do this, we will examine the words, phrases, and special
constructions that indicate the premises and conclusions of an argument. The second
stage is to explore the standards that arguments are supposed to meet. Here we will
focus on validity, truth, and soundness. The third stage is the study of techniques used
to protect an argument. These include guarding premises so that they are less subject
to criticism, offering assurances concerning debatable claims, and discounting possi-
ble criticisms in advance.

ARGUMENT MARKERS

In Chapter 2, we saw that language is used for a great many different pur-
poses. One important thing that we do with language is construct arguments.
Arguments are constructed out of statements, but arguments are not just lists
of statements. Here is a simple list of statements:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
This list is not an argument, because none of these statements is presented as
a reason for any other statement. It is, however, simple to turn this list into an
argument. All we have to do is to add the single word “therefore“:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Now we have an argument. The word “therefore” converts these sentences
into an argument by signaling that the statement following it is a conclusion,
and the statement or statements that come before it are offered as reasons
on behalf of this conclusion. The argument we have produced in this way

51
 CHAPTER 3 ■ The Language of Argument
52

is a good one, because the conclusion follows from the reasons stated on
its behalf.
There are other ways of linking these sentences to form an argument.
Here is one:
Since Socrates is a man,
and all men are mortal,
Socrates is mortal.
Notice that the word “since” works in roughly the opposite way that
“therefore” does. The word “therefore” is a conclusion marker, because it
indicates that the statement that follows it is a conclusion. In contrast, the
word “since” is a reason marker, because it indicates that the following state-
ment or statements are reasons. In our example, the conclusion comes at the
end, but there is a variation on this. Sometimes the conclusion is given at
the start:
Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man.
“Since” flags reasons; the remaining connected statement is then taken to
be the conclusion, whether it appears at the beginning or at the end of the
sentence.
Many other terms are used to introduce an argumentative structure into
language by marking either reasons or conclusions. Here is a partial list:

REASON MARKERS CONCLUSION MARKERS

since therefore
because hence
for thus
as then

We shall call such terms “argument markers,” because each presents one
or more statements as part of an argument or backing for some other
statement.
It is important to realize that these words are not always used as argument
markers. The words “since” and “then” are often used as indicators of time, as
in, “He’s been an American citizen since 1973” and “He ate a hot dog, then a
hamburger.” The word “for” is often used as a preposition, as in “John works
for IBM.” Because some of these terms have a variety of meanings, it is not pos-
sible to identify argument markers in a mechanical way just by looking at
words. It is necessary to examine the function of words in the context in which
they occur. One test of whether a word is functioning as an argument marker
in a particular sentence is whether you can substitute another argument
marker without changing the meaning of the sentence. In the last example, it
makes no sense to say, “John works since IBM.”
Many phrases are also available to signal that an argument is being given.
Here is just a small sample:
Argument Markers
53

from which it follows that . . .

from which we may conclude that . . .
from which we see that . . .
which goes to show that . . .
which establishes that . . .
We can also indicate conclusions and reasons by using argumentative perfor-
matives, which we examined briefly in Chapter 2. If someone says, “I conclude
that . . . ,” the words that follow are given the status of a conclusion. More pre-
tentiously, if someone says, “Here I base my argument on the claim that . . . ,”
what comes next has the status of a reason.
Examination of actual arguments will show that we have a great many
ways of introducing an argumentative structure into our language by using
the two forms of argument markers: reason markers and conclusion mark-
ers. The first, and in many ways the most important, step in analyzing an
argument is to identify the conclusion and the reasons given on its behalf.
We do this by paying close attention to these argument markers.

IF . . . , THEN . . .
If-then sentences, which are also called conditionals, often occur in arguments,
but they do not present arguments by themselves. To see this, consider the
following conditional:
If the Dodgers improve their hitting, then they will win the
Western Division.
The sentence between the “if” and the “then” is called the antecedent of the
conditional. The sentence after the “then” is called its consequent. In utter-
ing such a conditional, we are not asserting the truth of its antecedent,
and we are not asserting the truth of its consequent either. Thus, the per-
son who makes the above remark is not claiming that the Dodgers will
win the Western Division. All she is saying is that if they improve their
hitting, then they will win. Furthermore, she is not saying that they will
improve their hitting. Because the speaker is not committing herself to
either of these claims, she is not presenting an argument. This becomes
clear when we contrast this conditional with a statement that does formu-
late an argument:
Conditional: If the Dodgers improve their hitting, then they will win the
Western Division.
Argument: Since the Dodgers will improve their hitting, they will win the
Western Division.
The sentence that follows the word “since” is asserted. That is why “since”
is an argument marker, whereas the connective “if . . . then . . .” is not an
argument marker.
 CHAPTER 3 ■ The Language of Argument
54

Even though conditionals by themselves do not mark arguments, there

is a close relationship between conditionals and arguments: Indicative
conditionals provide patterns that can be converted into an argument
whenever the antecedent is said to be true. (We also get an argument when
the consequent is said to be false, but we will focus here on the simpler
case of asserting the antecedent.) Thus, we often hear people argue in the
following way:
If inflation continues to grow, there will be an economic crisis. But
inflation will certainly continue to grow, so an economic crisis is on
the way.
The first sentence is an indicative conditional. It makes no claims one way or
the other about whether inflation will grow or whether an economic crisis
will occur. The next sentence asserts the antecedent of this conditional and
then draws a conclusion signaled by the argument marker “so.” We might
say that when the antecedent of an indicative conditional is found to be true,
the conditional can be cashed in for an argument.
Often the antecedent of a conditional is not asserted explicitly but is con-
versationally implied. When asked which player should be recruited for a
team, the coach might just say, “If Deon is as good as our scouts say he is,
then we ought to go for Deon.” This conditional does not actually assert that
Deon is as good as the scouts report. Nonetheless, it would be irrelevant and
pointless for the coach to utter this conditional alone if he thought that the
scouts were way off the mark. The coach might immediately add that he
disagrees with the scouting reports. But unless the coach cancels the conver-
sational implication in some way, it is natural to interpret him as giving an
argument that we ought to pick Deon. In such circumstances, then, an
indicative conditional can conversationally imply an argument, even though
it does not state the argument explicitly.
This makes it easy to see why indicative conditionals are a useful fea-
ture of our language. By providing patterns for arguments, they prepare
us to draw conclusions when the circumstances are right. Much of our
knowledge of the world around us is contained in such conditionals. Here is
an example: If your computer does not start, the plug might be loose. This is
a useful piece of practical information, for when your computer does not
start, you can immediately infer that the plug might be loose, so you know
to check it out.
Other words function in similar ways. When your computer fails to
start, a friend might say, “Either the plug is loose or you are in deep
trouble.” Now, if you also assert, “The plug is not loose,” you can conclude
that you are in deep trouble. “Either . . . or . . .” sentences thus provide
patterns for arguments, just as conditionals do. However, neither if-then
sentences nor either-or sentences by themselves explicitly assert enough to
present a complete argument, so “if . . ., then . . .” and “either . . . or . . .”
should not be labeled as argument markers.
Arguments in Standard Form
55

Exercise I

Indicate which of the following italicized words or phrases is a reason marker,

a conclusion marker, or neither.
1. He apologized, so you should forgive him.
2. He apologized. Accordingly, you should forgive him.
3. Since he apologized, you should forgive him.
4. Provided that he apologized, you should forgive him.
5. In view of the fact that he apologized, you should forgive him.
6. He apologized. Ergo, you should forgive him.
7. Given that he apologized, you should forgive him.
8. He apologized, and because of that you should forgive him.
9. After he apologizes, you should forgive him.
10. He apologized. As a result, you should forgive him.
11. Seeing as he apologized, you should forgive him.
12. He apologized. For that reason alone, you should forgive him.

Exercise II

Indicate whether each of the following sentences is an argument.

1. Charles went bald, and most men go bald.
2. Charles went bald because most men go bald.
3. My roommate likes to ski, so I do, too.
4. My roommate likes to ski, and so do I.
5. I have been busy since Tuesday.
6. I am busy, since my teacher assigned lots of homework.

ARGUMENTS IN STANDARD FORM

Because arguments come in all shapes and forms, it will help to have a
standard way of presenting arguments. For centuries, logicians have used
a format of the following kind:
(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Socrates is mortal. (from 1–2)
 CHAPTER 3 ■ The Language of Argument
56

The reasons (or premises) are listed and numbered. Then a line is drawn be-
low the premises. Next, the conclusion is numbered and written below the
line. The symbol “ “, which is read “therefore,” is then added to the left of
the conclusion in order to indicate the relation between the premises and the
conclusion. Finally, the premises from which the conclusion is supposed to
be derived are indicated in parentheses. Arguments presented in this way
are said to be in standard form.
The notion of a standard form is useful because it helps us see that the
same argument can be expressed in different ways. For example, the follow-
ing three sentences formulate the argument that was given in standard form
above.
Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal, so Socrates is mortal, because he is a man.
All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, which goes to show that
Socrates is mortal.
More important, by putting arguments into standard form, we perform
the most obvious, and in some ways most important, step in the analysis of
an argument: the identification of its premises and conclusion.

Exercise III

Identify which of the following sentences expresses an argument. For each that
does, (1) circle the argument marker (or markers), (2) indicate whether it is a
reason marker or a conclusion marker, and (3) restate the argument in stan-
dard form.
1. Since Chicago is north of Boston, and Boston is north of Charleston,
Chicago is north of Charleston.
2. Toward evening, clouds formed and the sky grew darker; then the storm
broke.
3. Texas has a greater area than Topeka, and Topeka has a greater area than
the Bronx Zoo, so Texas has a greater area than the Bronx Zoo.
4. Both houses of Congress may pass a bill, but the president may still
veto it.
5. Other airlines will carry more passengers, because United Airlines is on
strike.
6. Since Jesse James left town, taking his gang with him, things have been a
lot quieter.
7. Things are a lot quieter, because Jesse James left town, taking his gang
with him.
8. Witches float because witches are made of wood, and wood floats.
9. The hour is up, so you must hand in your exams.
10. Joe quit, because his boss was giving him so much grief.