1 00:00:02,600 --> 00:00:08,483 Welcome back. We've covered stages one through three of argument reconstruction 2 00:00:08,483 --> 00:00:13,473 namely, close analysis, get down to basics, and sharpen edges. In this 3 00:00:13,473 --> 00:00:19,654 lecture, we'll cover stage four, which is organized parts. Cuz it's not enough to 4 00:00:19,654 --> 00:00:25,910 isolate the parts and figure out what they are. We need to show how the fit together 5 00:00:25,910 --> 00:00:32,166 in a structure so that they work together to support the conclusion of the argument. 6 00:00:32,166 --> 00:00:37,821 To see how this works, let's start with an example. Consider this example. That 7 00:00:37,821 --> 00:00:44,116 fertilizer won't help the roses bloom cuz there is already a lot of nitrogen in the 8 00:00:44,116 --> 00:00:49,696 soil. So, the fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels too high. Of course, so is 9 00:00:49,696 --> 00:00:55,061 a conclusion marker so one conclusion is that, the fertilizer will make the 10 00:00:55,061 --> 00:01:00,542 nitrogen levels too high. And then, you might think that one might have put the 11 00:01:00,542 --> 00:01:06,115 argument into standard form goes like this. Premise one is that fertilizer won't 12 00:01:06,115 --> 00:01:11,688 make the roses bloom. Premise two is the nitrogen levels in the soil are already 13 00:01:11,688 --> 00:01:17,053 high. And then, the conclusion is that the fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels 14 00:01:17,053 --> 00:01:21,906 too high. But that doesn't really make any sense, if you think about it. How could 15 00:01:21,906 --> 00:01:26,906 the fact that the roses won't bloom be a reason to believe that the nitrogen levels 16 00:01:26,906 --> 00:01:32,385 are too high? This couldn't be a reason for that. So, we might just have the wrong 17 00:01:32,385 --> 00:01:37,773 structure. However, there is another argument marker. This time it's a premise 18 00:01:37,773 --> 00:01:43,375 marker, because. And that indicates that the claim that there's already a lot of 19 00:01:43,375 --> 00:01:48,905 nitrogen in the soil is a premise. But what is the conclusion for that premise? 20 00:01:48,905 --> 00:01:55,111 That's supposed to show that the fertilizer won't make the roses bloom. So, 21 00:01:55,111 --> 00:02:00,818 we've missed that part of the structure if we put it in standard form, the way we 22 00:02:00,818 --> 00:02:06,032 first thought. The trick here is that there are really two conclusions. One 23 00:02:06,032 --> 00:02:11,176 conclusion is that the fertilizer won't help the roses bloom, and another 24 00:02:11,176 --> 00:02:17,094 conclusion is that the fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels too high. But 25 00:02:17,094 --> 00:02:22,762 each argument's just supposed to have one conclusion. So, how are we going to put 26 00:02:22,762 --> 00:02:28,577 this into a structure? The solution is that there are two arguments. One is that 27 00:02:28,577 --> 00:02:33,729 the nitrogen levels in the soil are already high. Therefore, adding the 28 00:02:33,729 --> 00:02:39,471 fertilizer will make them too high. And the second argument is that, adding the 29 00:02:39,471 --> 00:02:45,359 fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels too high, therefore the fertilizer will 30 00:02:45,359 --> 00:02:52,488 not make the roses bloom. Now notice that one argument really builds on the other 31 00:02:52,488 --> 00:02:58,510 because the conclusion of the first argument is really a premise in the second 32 00:02:58,510 --> 00:03:04,608 argument. So, we can represent them as two separate arguments. But we can also put 33 00:03:04,608 --> 00:03:10,553 them together in a chain. So that the argument says, the nitrogen levels in the 34 00:03:10,553 --> 00:03:16,499 soil are already high. Therefore, adding fertilizer will make them too high. And 35 00:03:16,499 --> 00:03:23,303 therefore, adding fertilizer will not help the roses bloom. Now, if we take that 36 00:03:23,303 --> 00:03:29,243 whole structure and we try to represent it in a diagram, and we represent each 37 00:03:29,243 --> 00:03:35,793 premise with a number, which is the number that was given in the standard form, then 38 00:03:35,793 --> 00:03:41,580 we can simply have premise one with an arrow to premise two indicating that 39 00:03:41,580 --> 00:03:47,825 premise one is a reason for premise two. And then, another arrow going from premise 40 00:03:47,825 --> 00:03:53,999 two to premise three to indicate that two is a reason for three. In a way, we've got 41 00:03:53,999 --> 00:03:59,473 two premises and two conclusions because that one kind in the middle, number two, 42 00:03:59,473 --> 00:04:04,604 operates as a conclusion in the first argument and a premise in the second 43 00:04:04,604 --> 00:04:09,736 argument. But overall, I hope the diagram, its clear. Well, I want to call this 44 00:04:09,736 --> 00:04:14,388 linear structure. When you have one premise giving reason for a conclusion 45 00:04:14,388 --> 00:04:19,451 which is then premise for another conclusion, then they form a line in the 46 00:04:19,451 --> 00:04:23,842 diagram them in the way that I am proposing. Arguments can have other 47 00:04:23,842 --> 00:04:29,424 structures, too. In particular, sometimes there's more than one premise associated 48 00:04:29,424 --> 00:04:34,868 with a single conclusion. And this can happen in two ways. The first, we're going 49 00:04:34,454 --> 00:04:39,761 to call the branching structure, and the second we're going to call the joint 50 00:04:39,761 --> 00:04:45,322 structure. Here is an example of the branching structure. I'm not going to go 51 00:04:45,322 --> 00:04:50,929 to the movie with you because I don't like horror flicks. And besides, I'm too busy. 52 00:04:50,929 --> 00:04:56,263 The word beca use is a premise marker. So that indicates that the conclusion is 53 00:04:56,263 --> 00:05:01,323 that, I'm not going to go to the movie with you. And there are two premises. One 54 00:05:01,323 --> 00:05:06,315 is, I don't like horror flicks, and the other is, I'm too busy. Now, you might 55 00:05:06,315 --> 00:05:11,922 think that, that could just be put in the old linear structure that we already saw. 56 00:05:11,922 --> 00:05:18,041 But then, the argument's going to look like this. I don't like horror flicks. 57 00:05:18,041 --> 00:05:22,969 Therefore, I'm too busy. Therefore, I'm not going to go to the movie. But, wait a 58 00:05:22,969 --> 00:05:27,844 minute. The fact that I don't like horror flicks doesn't mean I'm too busy. That 59 00:05:27,844 --> 00:05:32,843 doesn't make any sense. Oh, maybe it's the other way around. I'm too busy. Therefore, 60 00:05:32,843 --> 00:05:37,595 I don't like horror flicks. Therefore, I'm not going to go to that movie with you. 61 00:05:37,595 --> 00:05:42,532 That doesn't make any sense either. The fact that I'm too busy isn't why I don't 62 00:05:42,532 --> 00:05:47,654 like horror flicks. The problem is, there are two premises here but neither one is a 63 00:05:47,654 --> 00:05:52,423 reason for the other, as we saw in the linear structure. Instead, in this 64 00:05:52,423 --> 00:05:57,424 branching structure, each premise is operating independently. There's one 65 00:05:57,424 --> 00:06:01,888 argument. I don't like horror flicks, therefore I'm not going to go to that 66 00:06:01,888 --> 00:06:06,613 movie with you. There's another argument. I'm too busy, therefore I'm not going to 67 00:06:06,613 --> 00:06:11,515 that movie with you. And each premise by itself is a sufficient reason not to go to 68 00:06:11,515 --> 00:06:15,826 the movie with you. I mean, just think about it. If I wasn't too busy, but I 69 00:06:15,826 --> 00:06:20,255 didn't like horror flicks, I wouldn't go to the movie. But if I liked horror 70 00:06:20,255 --> 00:06:24,685 flicks, but I was too busy, I still would go to the movie. So, each premise by 71 00:06:24,685 --> 00:06:29,850 itself is enough, and they operate independently. That's what makes this a 72 00:06:29,850 --> 00:06:35,388 branching structure instead of a linear structure. Let's diagram it and you'll see 73 00:06:35,388 --> 00:06:40,727 why we call it a branching structure. One way to diagram it would be to simply draw 74 00:06:40,727 --> 00:06:45,615 an arrow between premise one and the conclusion two. And then, there's a 75 00:06:45,615 --> 00:06:50,917 separate argument, so you draw another arrow from one star, another premise, to 76 00:06:50,917 --> 00:06:56,726 conclusion two. And that's okay. But, notice that it doesn't show you that both 77 00:06:56,726 --> 00:07:02,427 premises are reasons for the same conclusion. So, to capture t hat aspect of 78 00:07:02,427 --> 00:07:08,128 the structure, that both Premise one and Premise one Star support the same 79 00:07:08,128 --> 00:07:14,137 conclusion, namely two. It's better to diagram it so that there's an arrow that 80 00:07:14,137 --> 00:07:20,533 runs independently from both premises to a single instance of conclusion two, as you 81 00:07:20,533 --> 00:07:25,290 see on the diagram on the screen. And that should show you why we're calling it a 82 00:07:25,290 --> 00:07:28,949 branching structure cuz it kind of branches, it looks like the branches of a 83 00:07:28,949 --> 00:07:32,704 tree. Okay. Well, it doesn't really look like the branches of a tree, but you get 84 00:07:32,704 --> 00:07:36,174 the idea. We're going to call it a branching structure. Next, we have to 85 00:07:36,174 --> 00:07:40,676 separate this branching structure from what we're going to call the joint 86 00:07:40,676 --> 00:07:45,812 structure. The difference is that in the branching structure, the premises provide 87 00:07:45,812 --> 00:07:50,630 independent support for the conclusion. Whereas, in this joint structure, they 88 00:07:50,630 --> 00:07:55,766 work together and they're not going to have force independent of each-other. It's 89 00:07:55,766 --> 00:08:00,775 like the joint in your leg, which joins together the calf with the thigh. And, if 90 00:08:00,775 --> 00:08:05,404 you didn't have both, it wouldn't work very well. So, we're going to call it a 91 00:08:05,404 --> 00:08:11,620 joint structure. Here's an example. For my birthday, my wife always gives me either a 92 00:08:11,620 --> 00:08:17,578 sweater or a board game. This box does not contain a sweater. So, this time she must 93 00:08:17,578 --> 00:08:23,316 have given me a board game. Now, notice that the argent marker, so, indicates that 94 00:08:23,316 --> 00:08:28,233 the conclusion is, this time she must've given me a board game. And it's got two 95 00:08:28,233 --> 00:08:33,150 premises. And you might think that they got a linear structure, and the argument 96 00:08:33,150 --> 00:08:38,191 goes something like this. My wife always gives me either a sweater or board games. 97 00:08:38,191 --> 00:08:43,046 Therefore, this box does not contain a sweater. Therefore, this time she gave me 98 00:08:43,046 --> 00:08:47,838 board game. That doesn't make any sense, right? I mean, the fact that she always 99 00:08:47,838 --> 00:08:52,879 gives me either a sweater or board game is no reason to believe this box doesn't 100 00:08:52,879 --> 00:08:58,967 contain a sweater. Well, okay. Let's try it again. Maybe it's a branching 101 00:08:58,967 --> 00:09:05,159 structure. That would mean that the argument looks like this. My wife always 102 00:09:05,159 --> 00:09:11,171 gives me either a sweater or a board game. Therefore, this time she gave me a board 103 00:09:11,171 --> 00:09:16,890 game. And, as a separat e argument, this box does not contain a sweater, therefore 104 00:09:16,890 --> 00:09:21,356 this time she must have given me a board game. Neither of those arguments makes any 105 00:09:21,356 --> 00:09:25,917 sense so it can't be a branching structure. Instead, what we have here is 106 00:09:25,917 --> 00:09:31,806 the two premises working together. She always gives me either a sweater or a 107 00:09:31,806 --> 00:09:38,006 board game. And, the second premise, this box does not contain a sweater. Those two 108 00:09:38,006 --> 00:09:44,205 premises have to work together. It's only jointly working together that they can 109 00:09:44,205 --> 00:09:50,560 support the conclusion that, this time she must have given me a board game. How can 110 00:09:50,560 --> 00:09:57,089 we diagram this joint structure? We can put a plus sign between premise one and 111 00:09:57,089 --> 00:10:02,621 premise two, then draw a line under them to show that they work together jointly. 112 00:10:02,621 --> 00:10:08,967 And take a line from that line and draw an arrow down to the conclusion, just like in 113 00:10:08,967 --> 00:10:14,158 the diagram. And this is what we're going to call the joint structure. So, we've 114 00:10:14,158 --> 00:10:19,348 seen the linear structure, the branching structure, and the joint structure. And, 115 00:10:19,348 --> 00:10:24,811 we can combine more than one of these structures into a single argument. To see 116 00:10:24,811 --> 00:10:30,206 how to do this, let's just do a slight variation on the previous example. My wife 117 00:10:30,206 --> 00:10:35,533 always gives me either a sweater or a board game. This is box is not contain a 118 00:10:35,533 --> 00:10:41,900 sweater because it rattles when I shake it. So, this time she must have given me a 119 00:10:41,900 --> 00:10:48,760 board game. This argument combines a linear structure with a joint structure. 120 00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:54,387 There are two argument markers. One is a conclusion marker, so, and that indicates 121 00:10:54,387 --> 00:10:59,721 that the eventual conclusion is that she must given me a board game this time. But 122 00:10:59,721 --> 00:11:05,054 there's also that new word, because, which indicates that the fact that it rattles 123 00:11:05,054 --> 00:11:09,598 when I shake means that it's not a sweater. So, the first stage of the 124 00:11:09,598 --> 00:11:15,129 argument in standard form looks like this. Premise one, this box rattles when I shake 125 00:11:15,129 --> 00:11:20,769 it. Therefore, conclusion, this box does not contain a sweater. Stage two says, 126 00:11:20,769 --> 00:11:27,820 this box does not contain a sweater, my wife always gives me either a sweater or a 127 00:11:27,820 --> 00:11:34,555 board game. So, the conclusion, this time, she must have given me a board game. And, 128 00:11:34,555 --> 00:11:40,055 of course, the conclusion of that fir st little argument is identical with the 129 00:11:40,055 --> 00:11:45,698 premise of the second argument, so we can put them together into a chain. We can 130 00:11:45,698 --> 00:11:51,270 say," this box rattles when I shake it, so it must not contain a sweater." My wife 131 00:11:51,270 --> 00:11:56,984 always gives me a sweater or a board game, so this time she must have given me a 132 00:11:56,984 --> 00:12:02,990 board game. That's how we get a linear structure combined with a joint structure. 133 00:12:02,990 --> 00:12:08,599 And we can use our diagram methods to diagram this argument the same way we did 134 00:12:08,599 --> 00:12:14,775 before. We simply start with premise one, the box rattles when I shake it. Draw an 135 00:12:14,775 --> 00:12:20,849 arrow down to its conclusion. Namely, the box does not contain a sweater. That's 136 00:12:20,849 --> 00:12:27,002 two. An then, we show that those are joint by adding a plus, premise three. Namely, 137 00:12:27,002 --> 00:12:33,232 my wife always gives me either a sweater or a board game. Draw a line under them 138 00:12:33,232 --> 00:12:39,540 and an arrow from those two together down to the eventual conclusion, namely, four 139 00:12:39,540 --> 00:12:45,357 that this time she must have given me a board game. The fact that the top arrow 140 00:12:45,357 --> 00:12:50,902 goes from premise one to two, but does not go from premise one to three indicates 141 00:12:50,902 --> 00:12:56,448 that, that premises is a reason for two but is not a reason for three. So when you 142 00:12:56,448 --> 00:13:01,857 use this method to diagram arguments, you have to be careful where you draw the 143 00:13:01,857 --> 00:13:07,197 arrows. And draw them only where there really is a rational connection. That is, 144 00:13:07,197 --> 00:13:12,879 where one claim is being presenting as a reason for that particular claim that the 145 00:13:12,879 --> 00:13:18,396 arrow is pointing towards. Now, almost all arguments can be diagrammed using these 146 00:13:18,396 --> 00:13:23,628 three simple structures. That is, the linear structure, the branching structure, 147 00:13:23,628 --> 00:13:29,199 the joint structure, and some combination of those three. You can add more premises 148 00:13:29,199 --> 00:13:34,430 because you can always add one plus two plus three plus four if they're four 149 00:13:34,430 --> 00:13:39,959 premises operating together in a joint structure. And, you can add extra arrows 150 00:13:39,959 --> 00:13:45,646 if you have a branch with more than two branches. So, you can cover a lot of 151 00:13:45,646 --> 00:13:50,896 arguments using these kinds of diagrams. The method can be described in general, 152 00:13:50,896 --> 00:13:55,271 like this. You start by identifying the premises and the conclusions, and you 153 00:13:55,271 --> 00:13:59,873 number them. So that you can just have numbers instead of having to write out the 154 00:13:59,873 --> 00:14:04,362 whole sentence on the diagram. Then, when they work together, you put a plus sign 155 00:14:04,362 --> 00:14:08,908 between them and draw a line under it to indicate that they're working together. 156 00:14:08,908 --> 00:14:14,680 They're functioning as a group. Then, you draw an arrow from the claims that are 157 00:14:14,680 --> 00:14:20,096 reasons to the claims that they are reasons for. And then, you move them 158 00:14:20,096 --> 00:14:25,170 around on the diagram so that they'll form a line when it's a linear structure and 159 00:14:25,170 --> 00:14:30,183 branches when it's a branching structure. But, it will be easy to rearrange them so 160 00:14:30,183 --> 00:14:34,952 as to show how all of the different premises and conclusions work together in 161 00:14:34,952 --> 00:14:40,477 a single argumentative structure. That's going to be enough to accomplish this 162 00:14:40,477 --> 00:14:46,400 stage of reconstruction. Namely, to organize the parts and show how they work 163 00:14:46,400 --> 00:14:48,972 together in the overall argument.