0:00:02.600,0:00:08.483
Welcome back. We've covered stages one[br]through three of argument reconstruction

0:00:08.483,0:00:13.473
namely, close analysis, get down to[br]basics, and sharpen edges. In this

0:00:13.473,0:00:19.654
lecture, we'll cover stage four, which is[br]organized parts. Cuz it's not enough to

0:00:19.654,0:00:25.910
isolate the parts and figure out what they[br]are. We need to show how the fit together

0:00:25.910,0:00:32.166
in a structure so that they work together[br]to support the conclusion of the argument.

0:00:32.166,0:00:37.821
To see how this works, let's start with an[br]example. Consider this example. That

0:00:37.821,0:00:44.116
fertilizer won't help the roses bloom cuz[br]there is already a lot of nitrogen in the

0:00:44.116,0:00:49.696
soil. So, the fertilizer will make the[br]nitrogen levels too high. Of course, so is

0:00:49.696,0:00:55.061
a conclusion marker so one conclusion is[br]that, the fertilizer will make the

0:00:55.061,0:01:00.542
nitrogen levels too high. And then, you[br]might think that one might have put the

0:01:00.542,0:01:06.115
argument into standard form goes like[br]this. Premise one is that fertilizer won't

0:01:06.115,0:01:11.688
make the roses bloom. Premise two is the[br]nitrogen levels in the soil are already

0:01:11.688,0:01:17.053
high. And then, the conclusion is that the[br]fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels

0:01:17.053,0:01:21.906
too high. But that doesn't really make any[br]sense, if you think about it. How could

0:01:21.906,0:01:26.906
the fact that the roses won't bloom be a[br]reason to believe that the nitrogen levels

0:01:26.906,0:01:32.385
are too high? This couldn't be a reason[br]for that. So, we might just have the wrong

0:01:32.385,0:01:37.773
structure. However, there is another[br]argument marker. This time it's a premise

0:01:37.773,0:01:43.375
marker, because. And that indicates that[br]the claim that there's already a lot of

0:01:43.375,0:01:48.905
nitrogen in the soil is a premise. But[br]what is the conclusion for that premise?

0:01:48.905,0:01:55.111
That's supposed to show that the[br]fertilizer won't make the roses bloom. So,

0:01:55.111,0:02:00.818
we've missed that part of the structure if[br]we put it in standard form, the way we

0:02:00.818,0:02:06.032
first thought. The trick here is that[br]there are really two conclusions. One

0:02:06.032,0:02:11.176
conclusion is that the fertilizer won't[br]help the roses bloom, and another

0:02:11.176,0:02:17.094
conclusion is that the fertilizer will[br]make the nitrogen levels too high. But

0:02:17.094,0:02:22.762
each argument's just supposed to have one[br]conclusion. So, how are we going to put

0:02:22.762,0:02:28.577
this into a structure? The solution is[br]that there are two arguments. One is that

0:02:28.577,0:02:33.729
the nitrogen levels in the soil are[br]already high. Therefore, adding the

0:02:33.729,0:02:39.471
fertilizer will make them too high. And[br]the second argument is that, adding the

0:02:39.471,0:02:45.359
fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels[br]too high, therefore the fertilizer will

0:02:45.359,0:02:52.488
not make the roses bloom. Now notice that[br]one argument really builds on the other

0:02:52.488,0:02:58.510
because the conclusion of the first[br]argument is really a premise in the second

0:02:58.510,0:03:04.608
argument. So, we can represent them as two[br]separate arguments. But we can also put

0:03:04.608,0:03:10.553
them together in a chain. So that the[br]argument says, the nitrogen levels in the

0:03:10.553,0:03:16.499
soil are already high. Therefore, adding[br]fertilizer will make them too high. And

0:03:16.499,0:03:23.303
therefore, adding fertilizer will not help[br]the roses bloom. Now, if we take that

0:03:23.303,0:03:29.243
whole structure and we try to represent it[br]in a diagram, and we represent each

0:03:29.243,0:03:35.793
premise with a number, which is the number[br]that was given in the standard form, then

0:03:35.793,0:03:41.580
we can simply have premise one with an[br]arrow to premise two indicating that

0:03:41.580,0:03:47.825
premise one is a reason for premise two.[br]And then, another arrow going from premise

0:03:47.825,0:03:53.999
two to premise three to indicate that two[br]is a reason for three. In a way, we've got

0:03:53.999,0:03:59.473
two premises and two conclusions because[br]that one kind in the middle, number two,

0:03:59.473,0:04:04.604
operates as a conclusion in the first[br]argument and a premise in the second

0:04:04.604,0:04:09.736
argument. But overall, I hope the diagram,[br]its clear. Well, I want to call this

0:04:09.736,0:04:14.388
linear structure. When you have one[br]premise giving reason for a conclusion

0:04:14.388,0:04:19.451
which is then premise for another[br]conclusion, then they form a line in the

0:04:19.451,0:04:23.842
diagram them in the way that I am[br]proposing. Arguments can have other

0:04:23.842,0:04:29.424
structures, too. In particular, sometimes[br]there's more than one premise associated

0:04:29.424,0:04:34.868
with a single conclusion. And this can[br]happen in two ways. The first, we're going

0:04:34.454,0:04:39.761
to call the branching structure, and the[br]second we're going to call the joint

0:04:39.761,0:04:45.322
structure. Here is an example of the[br]branching structure. I'm not going to go

0:04:45.322,0:04:50.929
to the movie with you because I don't like[br]horror flicks. And besides, I'm too busy.

0:04:50.929,0:04:56.263
The word beca use is a premise marker. So[br]that indicates that the conclusion is

0:04:56.263,0:05:01.323
that, I'm not going to go to the movie[br]with you. And there are two premises. One

0:05:01.323,0:05:06.315
is, I don't like horror flicks, and the[br]other is, I'm too busy. Now, you might

0:05:06.315,0:05:11.922
think that, that could just be put in the[br]old linear structure that we already saw.

0:05:11.922,0:05:18.041
But then, the argument's going to look[br]like this. I don't like horror flicks.

0:05:18.041,0:05:22.969
Therefore, I'm too busy. Therefore, I'm[br]not going to go to the movie. But, wait a

0:05:22.969,0:05:27.844
minute. The fact that I don't like horror[br]flicks doesn't mean I'm too busy. That

0:05:27.844,0:05:32.843
doesn't make any sense. Oh, maybe it's the[br]other way around. I'm too busy. Therefore,

0:05:32.843,0:05:37.595
I don't like horror flicks. Therefore, I'm[br]not going to go to that movie with you.

0:05:37.595,0:05:42.532
That doesn't make any sense either. The[br]fact that I'm too busy isn't why I don't

0:05:42.532,0:05:47.654
like horror flicks. The problem is, there[br]are two premises here but neither one is a

0:05:47.654,0:05:52.423
reason for the other, as we saw in the[br]linear structure. Instead, in this

0:05:52.423,0:05:57.424
branching structure, each premise is[br]operating independently. There's one

0:05:57.424,0:06:01.888
argument. I don't like horror flicks,[br]therefore I'm not going to go to that

0:06:01.888,0:06:06.613
movie with you. There's another argument.[br]I'm too busy, therefore I'm not going to

0:06:06.613,0:06:11.515
that movie with you. And each premise by[br]itself is a sufficient reason not to go to

0:06:11.515,0:06:15.826
the movie with you. I mean, just think[br]about it. If I wasn't too busy, but I

0:06:15.826,0:06:20.255
didn't like horror flicks, I wouldn't go[br]to the movie. But if I liked horror

0:06:20.255,0:06:24.685
flicks, but I was too busy, I still would[br]go to the movie. So, each premise by

0:06:24.685,0:06:29.850
itself is enough, and they operate[br]independently. That's what makes this a

0:06:29.850,0:06:35.388
branching structure instead of a linear[br]structure. Let's diagram it and you'll see

0:06:35.388,0:06:40.727
why we call it a branching structure. One[br]way to diagram it would be to simply draw

0:06:40.727,0:06:45.615
an arrow between premise one and the[br]conclusion two. And then, there's a

0:06:45.615,0:06:50.917
separate argument, so you draw another[br]arrow from one star, another premise, to

0:06:50.917,0:06:56.726
conclusion two. And that's okay. But,[br]notice that it doesn't show you that both

0:06:56.726,0:07:02.427
premises are reasons for the same[br]conclusion. So, to capture t hat aspect of

0:07:02.427,0:07:08.128
the structure, that both Premise one and[br]Premise one Star support the same

0:07:08.128,0:07:14.137
conclusion, namely two. It's better to[br]diagram it so that there's an arrow that

0:07:14.137,0:07:20.533
runs independently from both premises to a[br]single instance of conclusion two, as you

0:07:20.533,0:07:25.290
see on the diagram on the screen. And that[br]should show you why we're calling it a

0:07:25.290,0:07:28.949
branching structure cuz it kind of[br]branches, it looks like the branches of a

0:07:28.949,0:07:32.704
tree. Okay. Well, it doesn't really look[br]like the branches of a tree, but you get

0:07:32.704,0:07:36.174
the idea. We're going to call it a[br]branching structure. Next, we have to

0:07:36.174,0:07:40.676
separate this branching structure from[br]what we're going to call the joint

0:07:40.676,0:07:45.812
structure. The difference is that in the[br]branching structure, the premises provide

0:07:45.812,0:07:50.630
independent support for the conclusion.[br]Whereas, in this joint structure, they

0:07:50.630,0:07:55.766
work together and they're not going to[br]have force independent of each-other. It's

0:07:55.766,0:08:00.775
like the joint in your leg, which joins[br]together the calf with the thigh. And, if

0:08:00.775,0:08:05.404
you didn't have both, it wouldn't work[br]very well. So, we're going to call it a

0:08:05.404,0:08:11.620
joint structure. Here's an example. For my[br]birthday, my wife always gives me either a

0:08:11.620,0:08:17.578
sweater or a board game. This box does not[br]contain a sweater. So, this time she must

0:08:17.578,0:08:23.316
have given me a board game. Now, notice[br]that the argent marker, so, indicates that

0:08:23.316,0:08:28.233
the conclusion is, this time she must've[br]given me a board game. And it's got two

0:08:28.233,0:08:33.150
premises. And you might think that they[br]got a linear structure, and the argument

0:08:33.150,0:08:38.191
goes something like this. My wife always[br]gives me either a sweater or board games.

0:08:38.191,0:08:43.046
Therefore, this box does not contain a[br]sweater. Therefore, this time she gave me

0:08:43.046,0:08:47.838
board game. That doesn't make any sense,[br]right? I mean, the fact that she always

0:08:47.838,0:08:52.879
gives me either a sweater or board game is[br]no reason to believe this box doesn't

0:08:52.879,0:08:58.967
contain a sweater. Well, okay. Let's try[br]it again. Maybe it's a branching

0:08:58.967,0:09:05.159
structure. That would mean that the[br]argument looks like this. My wife always

0:09:05.159,0:09:11.171
gives me either a sweater or a board game.[br]Therefore, this time she gave me a board

0:09:11.171,0:09:16.890
game. And, as a separat e argument, this[br]box does not contain a sweater, therefore

0:09:16.890,0:09:21.356
this time she must have given me a board[br]game. Neither of those arguments makes any

0:09:21.356,0:09:25.917
sense so it can't be a branching[br]structure. Instead, what we have here is

0:09:25.917,0:09:31.806
the two premises working together. She[br]always gives me either a sweater or a

0:09:31.806,0:09:38.006
board game. And, the second premise, this[br]box does not contain a sweater. Those two

0:09:38.006,0:09:44.205
premises have to work together. It's only[br]jointly working together that they can

0:09:44.205,0:09:50.560
support the conclusion that, this time she[br]must have given me a board game. How can

0:09:50.560,0:09:57.089
we diagram this joint structure? We can[br]put a plus sign between premise one and

0:09:57.089,0:10:02.621
premise two, then draw a line under them[br]to show that they work together jointly.

0:10:02.621,0:10:08.967
And take a line from that line and draw an[br]arrow down to the conclusion, just like in

0:10:08.967,0:10:14.158
the diagram. And this is what we're going[br]to call the joint structure. So, we've

0:10:14.158,0:10:19.348
seen the linear structure, the branching[br]structure, and the joint structure. And,

0:10:19.348,0:10:24.811
we can combine more than one of these[br]structures into a single argument. To see

0:10:24.811,0:10:30.206
how to do this, let's just do a slight[br]variation on the previous example. My wife

0:10:30.206,0:10:35.533
always gives me either a sweater or a[br]board game. This is box is not contain a

0:10:35.533,0:10:41.900
sweater because it rattles when I shake[br]it. So, this time she must have given me a

0:10:41.900,0:10:48.760
board game. This argument combines a[br]linear structure with a joint structure.

0:10:49.120,0:10:54.387
There are two argument markers. One is a[br]conclusion marker, so, and that indicates

0:10:54.387,0:10:59.721
that the eventual conclusion is that she[br]must given me a board game this time. But

0:10:59.721,0:11:05.054
there's also that new word, because, which[br]indicates that the fact that it rattles

0:11:05.054,0:11:09.598
when I shake means that it's not a[br]sweater. So, the first stage of the

0:11:09.598,0:11:15.129
argument in standard form looks like this.[br]Premise one, this box rattles when I shake

0:11:15.129,0:11:20.769
it. Therefore, conclusion, this box does[br]not contain a sweater. Stage two says,

0:11:20.769,0:11:27.820
this box does not contain a sweater, my[br]wife always gives me either a sweater or a

0:11:27.820,0:11:34.555
board game. So, the conclusion, this time,[br]she must have given me a board game. And,

0:11:34.555,0:11:40.055
of course, the conclusion of that fir st[br]little argument is identical with the

0:11:40.055,0:11:45.698
premise of the second argument, so we can[br]put them together into a chain. We can

0:11:45.698,0:11:51.270
say," this box rattles when I shake it, so[br]it must not contain a sweater." My wife

0:11:51.270,0:11:56.984
always gives me a sweater or a board game,[br]so this time she must have given me a

0:11:56.984,0:12:02.990
board game. That's how we get a linear[br]structure combined with a joint structure.

0:12:02.990,0:12:08.599
And we can use our diagram methods to[br]diagram this argument the same way we did

0:12:08.599,0:12:14.775
before. We simply start with premise one,[br]the box rattles when I shake it. Draw an

0:12:14.775,0:12:20.849
arrow down to its conclusion. Namely, the[br]box does not contain a sweater. That's

0:12:20.849,0:12:27.002
two. An then, we show that those are joint[br]by adding a plus, premise three. Namely,

0:12:27.002,0:12:33.232
my wife always gives me either a sweater[br]or a board game. Draw a line under them

0:12:33.232,0:12:39.540
and an arrow from those two together down[br]to the eventual conclusion, namely, four

0:12:39.540,0:12:45.357
that this time she must have given me a[br]board game. The fact that the top arrow

0:12:45.357,0:12:50.902
goes from premise one to two, but does not[br]go from premise one to three indicates

0:12:50.902,0:12:56.448
that, that premises is a reason for two[br]but is not a reason for three. So when you

0:12:56.448,0:13:01.857
use this method to diagram arguments, you[br]have to be careful where you draw the

0:13:01.857,0:13:07.197
arrows. And draw them only where there[br]really is a rational connection. That is,

0:13:07.197,0:13:12.879
where one claim is being presenting as a[br]reason for that particular claim that the

0:13:12.879,0:13:18.396
arrow is pointing towards. Now, almost all[br]arguments can be diagrammed using these

0:13:18.396,0:13:23.628
three simple structures. That is, the[br]linear structure, the branching structure,

0:13:23.628,0:13:29.199
the joint structure, and some combination[br]of those three. You can add more premises

0:13:29.199,0:13:34.430
because you can always add one plus two[br]plus three plus four if they're four

0:13:34.430,0:13:39.959
premises operating together in a joint[br]structure. And, you can add extra arrows

0:13:39.959,0:13:45.646
if you have a branch with more than two[br]branches. So, you can cover a lot of

0:13:45.646,0:13:50.896
arguments using these kinds of diagrams.[br]The method can be described in general,

0:13:50.896,0:13:55.271
like this. You start by identifying the[br]premises and the conclusions, and you

0:13:55.271,0:13:59.873
number them. So that you can just have[br]numbers instead of having to write out the

0:13:59.873,0:14:04.362
whole sentence on the diagram. Then, when[br]they work together, you put a plus sign

0:14:04.362,0:14:08.908
between them and draw a line under it to[br]indicate that they're working together.

0:14:08.908,0:14:14.680
They're functioning as a group. Then, you[br]draw an arrow from the claims that are

0:14:14.680,0:14:20.096
reasons to the claims that they are[br]reasons for. And then, you move them

0:14:20.096,0:14:25.170
around on the diagram so that they'll form[br]a line when it's a linear structure and

0:14:25.170,0:14:30.183
branches when it's a branching structure.[br]But, it will be easy to rearrange them so

0:14:30.183,0:14:34.952
as to show how all of the different[br]premises and conclusions work together in

0:14:34.952,0:14:40.477
a single argumentative structure. That's[br]going to be enough to accomplish this

0:14:40.477,0:14:46.400
stage of reconstruction. Namely, to[br]organize the parts and show how they work

0:14:46.400,0:14:48.972
together in the overall argument.