1 00:00:02,200 --> 00:00:07,325 Here what we want to focus on in particular is the language of argument. 2 00:00:07,325 --> 00:00:12,877 We need to understand the language of argument in order to be able to spot an 3 00:00:12,877 --> 00:00:16,080 argument. That is to determine when a passage 4 00:00:16,080 --> 00:00:20,849 contains an argument and what part of the passage is that argument. 5 00:00:20,849 --> 00:00:24,820 So, how can we tell when an argument is being given? 6 00:00:24,820 --> 00:00:29,547 Well recall the definition of an argument as a series of sentences, statements, or 7 00:00:29,547 --> 00:00:34,042 propositions, where some of them are premises and one of them is a conclusion, 8 00:00:34,042 --> 00:00:37,894 and the premises are intended to give a reason for the conclusion. 9 00:00:37,894 --> 00:00:43,188 So the real question of when an argument has been given comes down to the question 10 00:00:43,188 --> 00:00:47,780 of when certain sentences are intended as reasons for other sentences. 11 00:00:47,780 --> 00:00:53,095 Now the answer is that we can tell the person's intentions when they're speaking 12 00:00:53,095 --> 00:00:57,622 by which words they choose. So there's going to be certain words that 13 00:00:57,622 --> 00:01:01,034 indicate that some sentences are reasons for others. 14 00:01:01,034 --> 00:01:07,450 Just compare these two sentences. I am tall and I am good at sports. 15 00:01:07,450 --> 00:01:13,640 And compare that to, I am tall, so I am good at sports. 16 00:01:13,640 --> 00:01:18,793 Now notice that you can take the first sentence, I am tall and I am good at 17 00:01:18,793 --> 00:01:23,053 sports, and switch it around. I am good at sports and I am tall. 18 00:01:23,053 --> 00:01:28,413 Switching doesn't make any difference, but it's very different if you say, I am 19 00:01:28,413 --> 00:01:33,085 tall, so I am good at sports. That's very different from, I am good at 20 00:01:33,085 --> 00:01:36,721 sports, so I am tall. So we know from the fact that you can 21 00:01:36,721 --> 00:01:41,245 switch around the and sentence, and you cannot switch around the so sentence. 22 00:01:41,245 --> 00:01:45,828 The word so introduces something very different from just conjoining the two 23 00:01:45,828 --> 00:01:48,090 claims. But then what's the difference? 24 00:01:48,090 --> 00:01:53,891 Well, the difference is that when you use the word, and, you're simply stating the 25 00:01:53,891 --> 00:01:55,341 two facts. I am tall. 26 00:01:55,341 --> 00:01:59,402 I am good at sports, and the and says that they're both true. 27 00:01:59,402 --> 00:02:04,914 But when you use the word, so, you're indicating that one of them is a reason 28 00:02:04,914 --> 00:02:08,612 for the other. If you say, I am tall, so I am good at 29 00:02:08,612 --> 00:02:10,799 sports, then you're suggesting that the reason 30 00:02:10,799 --> 00:02:12,780 why you're good at sports is that you're tall. 31 00:02:12,780 --> 00:02:16,841 But if you say, I'm good at sports so. I am tall, 32 00:02:16,841 --> 00:02:21,337 then you're indicating that the fact that you're good at sports is some kind of 33 00:02:21,337 --> 00:02:25,214 evidence that you must be tall. Maybe because you can only be good at 34 00:02:25,214 --> 00:02:27,405 sports if you're tall, which isn't true. 35 00:02:27,405 --> 00:02:30,665 That just shows it's a bad argument, but it is an argument. 36 00:02:30,665 --> 00:02:35,047 Because by using the word so, you're indicating that one of the sentences is a 37 00:02:35,047 --> 00:02:38,363 reason for the other. Of course, the word, so, is not the only 38 00:02:38,363 --> 00:02:41,734 word that plays this role in arguments, or has this function. 39 00:02:41,734 --> 00:02:46,003 You can also say. I am tall, therefore I am good at sports. 40 00:02:46,003 --> 00:02:52,382 Or I am tall, thus I am good at sports. Or I am tall, hence I am good at sports. 41 00:02:52,382 --> 00:02:56,110 Or I am tall, accordingly I am good at sports. 42 00:02:56,110 --> 00:02:59,590 All of these different pairs of sentences. 43 00:02:59,590 --> 00:03:03,433 Play the same role. They indicate that there's an argument 44 00:03:03,433 --> 00:03:06,151 there. Namely, the fact that I'm tall is a 45 00:03:06,151 --> 00:03:09,464 reason for the conclusion that I'm good at sports. 46 00:03:09,464 --> 00:03:13,176 So we're going to call all of these words argument markers, 47 00:03:13,176 --> 00:03:17,020 because they mark or indicate the presence of an argument. 48 00:03:17,020 --> 00:03:22,480 Next we want to distinguish two different kinds of arguing markers. 49 00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:27,861 So far, we've looked at so, and therefore, and thus, and accordingly. 50 00:03:27,861 --> 00:03:34,236 And each of those indicates that the sentence right after it is a conclusion. 51 00:03:34,236 --> 00:03:38,210 And the other sentence in the pair is a premise. 52 00:03:38,210 --> 00:03:42,415 So we're going to call these conclusion markers because they indicate that the 53 00:03:42,415 --> 00:03:44,740 sentence right after them is a conclusion. 54 00:03:44,740 --> 00:03:50,343 But there are other argument markers that also indicate arguments in the same way. 55 00:03:50,343 --> 00:03:55,802 What they indicate is that the sentence after them is a reason, or a premise, 56 00:03:55,802 --> 00:03:59,896 not a conclusion. For example, I can say, I'm good a sports 57 00:03:59,896 --> 00:04:03,968 because I am tall. Now the word because indicates that the 58 00:04:03,968 --> 00:04:09,107 fact that I'm tall is a reason for the conclusion that I'm good at sports. 59 00:04:09,107 --> 00:04:14,177 It doesn't mean that the sentence after the word because is a conclusion. 60 00:04:14,177 --> 00:04:19,386 Instead, it means that the sentence after the word because, is a reason, or a 61 00:04:19,386 --> 00:04:22,580 premise. So we're going to call it a reason maker, 62 00:04:22,580 --> 00:04:26,609 or a premise marker. And there are other reason markers as 63 00:04:26,609 --> 00:04:29,734 well. You could say, I am good at sports, for I 64 00:04:29,734 --> 00:04:32,579 am tall. I am good at sports as I am tall. 65 00:04:32,579 --> 00:04:36,047 I am good at sports for the reason that I am tall. 66 00:04:36,047 --> 00:04:40,002 I am good at sports and the reason why is that I am tall. 67 00:04:40,002 --> 00:04:45,344 There are lots of different ways to indicate that the fact that I am tall is 68 00:04:45,344 --> 00:04:49,020 a reason for the conclusion that I am good at sports. 69 00:04:49,020 --> 00:04:54,501 All of these words, both the conclusion markers and the reason markers indicate 70 00:04:54,501 --> 00:04:58,378 that there is an argument present. But only in some cases. 71 00:04:58,378 --> 00:05:03,132 You can't just look at the word and figure out whether it's an argument 72 00:05:03,132 --> 00:05:06,566 marker or not. You have to think about the role that 73 00:05:06,566 --> 00:05:09,933 it's playing. A perfect example of that is an other 74 00:05:09,933 --> 00:05:11,254 reason marker. Since. 75 00:05:11,254 --> 00:05:14,423 You can say, I am good at sports since I am tall. 76 00:05:14,423 --> 00:05:20,220 And then it looks like you are presenting the fact that you are tall as a reason 77 00:05:20,220 --> 00:05:24,965 why you're good at sports. But the word since doesn't always play 78 00:05:24,965 --> 00:05:28,760 that role. After all you can say the Sun has been up 79 00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:33,937 since seven o'clock this morning. And that doesn't mean that somehow the 80 00:05:33,937 --> 00:05:38,720 sun has an alarm clock that causes it to come up right at seven o'clock. 81 00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:43,768 All it's saying is that, the sun has been up after the time of seven o'clock. 82 00:05:43,768 --> 00:05:48,153 And all times since then. It doesn't indicate any kind of rational 83 00:05:48,153 --> 00:05:53,268 relation, such as the fact that it's seven o'clock being a reason why the sun 84 00:05:53,268 --> 00:05:55,402 came up. Or what about this one? 85 00:05:55,402 --> 00:05:58,327 It's been raining since my vacation began. 86 00:05:58,327 --> 00:06:02,274 Very disappointing, but you're not saying that it's raining 87 00:06:02,274 --> 00:06:06,702 because your vacation began, as if there's some kind of plot against 88 00:06:06,702 --> 00:06:10,674 you in the nature of weather, and that would be very paranoid. 89 00:06:10,674 --> 00:06:15,622 All you're saying is that, it has been raining every day since the time when 90 00:06:15,622 --> 00:06:19,464 your vacation began, or every day after your vacation began. 91 00:06:19,464 --> 00:06:24,087 So the since there indicates just a temporal relation, not some kind of 92 00:06:24,087 --> 00:06:27,697 rational relation. And what this shows us is that you can't 93 00:06:27,697 --> 00:06:31,858 just look for the word since and always mark it as an argument marker. 94 00:06:31,858 --> 00:06:35,960 You have to think about what the word since is doing in that context. 95 00:06:35,960 --> 00:06:40,716 And that'll be true for a lot of other reason markers and conclusion markers as 96 00:06:40,716 --> 00:06:43,450 well. Here's another example of the same point 97 00:06:43,450 --> 00:06:45,888 but with a conclusion marker. The word so. 98 00:06:45,888 --> 00:06:50,287 The word so sometimes indicates that the sentence after it's a conclusion. 99 00:06:50,287 --> 00:06:54,627 And the sentence before it's a reason. But it can also indicate something 100 00:06:54,627 --> 00:06:57,540 entirely different. You don't need to eat so much. 101 00:06:57,540 --> 00:07:01,749 So there doesn't indicate that much is a reason for anything. 102 00:07:01,749 --> 00:07:06,717 The word so is getting used in an entirely different way, that should be 103 00:07:06,717 --> 00:07:09,499 obvious. But the point again is that you can't 104 00:07:09,499 --> 00:07:13,078 just look for the word so and label it as an argument marker. 105 00:07:13,078 --> 00:07:17,830 You have to think about the function that it's playing in the particular context. 106 00:07:17,830 --> 00:07:22,583 Unfortunately sometimes it's hard to tell whether a particular word is being used 107 00:07:22,583 --> 00:07:25,340 as an argument marker or not. Here's an example. 108 00:07:25,340 --> 00:07:30,034 Suppose someone says, the liberal party has been dropping in the polls since the 109 00:07:30,034 --> 00:07:35,210 conservative party held their convention. And they might be saying, the liberal 110 00:07:35,210 --> 00:07:40,472 party has been dropping in the polls. And all times after the conservative 111 00:07:40,472 --> 00:07:45,228 party held their convention. But they might be saying something 112 00:07:45,228 --> 00:07:48,776 stronger. They might be saying that the liberal 113 00:07:48,776 --> 00:07:54,739 party has been dropping in the polls because the conservative party held their 114 00:07:54,739 --> 00:07:58,664 convention, or because of something that happened at 115 00:07:58,664 --> 00:08:02,665 that convention. How can you tell whether this person 116 00:08:02,665 --> 00:08:08,779 means to be claiming simply a temporal progression or some kind of reason for 117 00:08:08,779 --> 00:08:14,289 the drop in the polls? One trick, that's very useful, is to try 118 00:08:14,289 --> 00:08:19,432 to substitute a different word. If their claim means, pretty much, the 119 00:08:19,432 --> 00:08:25,406 same if they had said, the liberal party has been dropping in the polls because 120 00:08:25,406 --> 00:08:30,927 the conservative party held it's convention, then you're claiming there's 121 00:08:30,927 --> 00:08:35,057 a rational relation. But if you can't substitute because for 122 00:08:35,057 --> 00:08:39,376 since, then the word since is not being used as an argument marker. 123 00:08:39,376 --> 00:08:42,255 Now sometimes that's just going to be clear. 124 00:08:42,255 --> 00:08:45,199 When it's not clear, what are you going to do? 125 00:08:45,199 --> 00:08:50,173 We can ask the person who's talking. You can say, well tell me, are you saying 126 00:08:50,173 --> 00:08:55,473 that the Liberal Party has no following in the polls because of the Conservative 127 00:08:55,473 --> 00:09:00,446 Party convention, or are you just saying that that's the time when they were 128 00:09:00,446 --> 00:09:03,320 falling? They might be able to answer your 129 00:09:03,320 --> 00:09:06,639 question. Of course they still might not, because 130 00:09:06,639 --> 00:09:11,202 sometimes it's just not clear. You simply have to try your best to 131 00:09:11,202 --> 00:09:16,663 figure out what the person's saying, and if you can't figure it out, it might of 132 00:09:16,663 --> 00:09:21,779 course just be because they're not clear. After all, many people speak very 133 00:09:21,779 --> 00:09:25,098 loosely. And then it's hard for you to tell what 134 00:09:25,098 --> 00:09:28,624 they're saying. They might not even know themselves 135 00:09:28,624 --> 00:09:33,128 exactly what they're saying. But a good test is whether you can 136 00:09:33,128 --> 00:09:37,752 substitute another argument marker for the term that's unclear. 137 00:09:37,752 --> 00:09:43,257 That won't solve all your problems, but when you can substitute an argument 138 00:09:43,257 --> 00:09:49,129 marker for a particular word, that shows that, that word in this context is being 139 00:09:49,129 --> 00:09:54,193 used to indicate that something is a premise, that gives a reason for 140 00:09:54,193 --> 00:10:00,064 something else which is the conclusion. Namely, it shows that there's an argument 141 00:10:00,064 --> 00:10:04,995 being given in that passage. The one last word that we have to talk 142 00:10:04,995 --> 00:10:10,157 about is that little word if. Sometimes it's linked with the word then, 143 00:10:10,157 --> 00:10:14,287 in an if-then clause, which is also called a conditional. 144 00:10:14,287 --> 00:10:18,342 We'll talk a lot about conditions later in this course. 145 00:10:18,342 --> 00:10:21,760 But for now I just want to make one point. 146 00:10:21,760 --> 00:10:27,675 The word if might seem like an argument marker because it's often used in 147 00:10:27,675 --> 00:10:31,351 arguments. For example, I might say, if I'm rich 148 00:10:31,351 --> 00:10:36,867 enough, I can buy a baseball team. And I am rich enough, so I can buy a 149 00:10:36,867 --> 00:10:40,384 baseball team. Now, that would be an argument. 150 00:10:40,384 --> 00:10:46,080 But if all I say is if I'm rich enough, I can buy a baseball team. 151 00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:51,956 When I know I'm not rich enough, so I would never assert the if clause that 152 00:10:51,956 --> 00:10:57,111 says I am rich enough, then that little if sentence is not being 153 00:10:57,111 --> 00:11:02,450 used to indicate an argument at all. It's just saying, if I am rich enough 154 00:11:02,450 --> 00:11:07,789 then I can buy a baseball team. It's not saying that I am rich enough and 155 00:11:07,789 --> 00:11:11,226 it's not saying that I can buy a baseball team. 156 00:11:11,226 --> 00:11:15,249 So the word if by itself does not indicate an argument. 157 00:11:15,249 --> 00:11:19,417 It sets a pattern for argument, if one thing then another, 158 00:11:19,417 --> 00:11:24,672 or the one thing therefore the other. But the if one thing, then another, 159 00:11:24,672 --> 00:11:27,994 doesn't, by itself, indicate any argument at all, 160 00:11:27,994 --> 00:11:33,648 because it doesn't assert that if clause which is also called the antecedent of 161 00:11:33,648 --> 00:11:37,676 the conditional. So, we are not going to count the word if 162 00:11:37,676 --> 00:11:41,845 as an argument marker. Now we've learned how to identify an 163 00:11:41,845 --> 00:11:43,754 argument. Pretty simple, huh? 164 00:11:43,754 --> 00:11:48,701 But just to make sure you've got it straight, let's do a few exercises.