WEBVTT 00:00:02.600 --> 00:00:08.483 Welcome back. We've covered stages one through three of argument reconstruction 00:00:08.483 --> 00:00:13.473 namely, close analysis, get down to basics, and sharpen edges. In this 00:00:13.473 --> 00:00:19.654 lecture, we'll cover stage four, which is organized parts. Cuz it's not enough to 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 00:00:25.910 --> 00:00:32.166 in a structure so that they work together to support the conclusion of the argument. 00:00:32.166 --> 00:00:37.821 To see how this works, let's start with an example. Consider this example. That 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 00:00:44.116 --> 00:00:49.696 soil. So, the fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels too high. Of course, so is 00:00:49.696 --> 00:00:55.061 a conclusion marker so one conclusion is that, the fertilizer will make the 00:00:55.061 --> 00:01:00.542 nitrogen levels too high. And then, you might think that one might have put the 00:01:00.542 --> 00:01:06.115 argument into standard form goes like this. Premise one is that fertilizer won't 00:01:06.115 --> 00:01:11.688 make the roses bloom. Premise two is the nitrogen levels in the soil are already 00:01:11.688 --> 00:01:17.053 high. And then, the conclusion is that the fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels 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 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 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 00:01:32.385 --> 00:01:37.773 structure. However, there is another argument marker. This time it's a premise 00:01:37.773 --> 00:01:43.375 marker, because. And that indicates that the claim that there's already a lot of 00:01:43.375 --> 00:01:48.905 nitrogen in the soil is a premise. But what is the conclusion for that premise? 00:01:48.905 --> 00:01:55.111 That's supposed to show that the fertilizer won't make the roses bloom. So, 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 00:02:00.818 --> 00:02:06.032 first thought. The trick here is that there are really two conclusions. One 00:02:06.032 --> 00:02:11.176 conclusion is that the fertilizer won't help the roses bloom, and another 00:02:11.176 --> 00:02:17.094 conclusion is that the fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels too high. But 00:02:17.094 --> 00:02:22.762 each argument's just supposed to have one conclusion. So, how are we going to put 00:02:22.762 --> 00:02:28.577 this into a structure? The solution is that there are two arguments. One is that 00:02:28.577 --> 00:02:33.729 the nitrogen levels in the soil are already high. Therefore, adding the 00:02:33.729 --> 00:02:39.471 fertilizer will make them too high. And the second argument is that, adding the 00:02:39.471 --> 00:02:45.359 fertilizer will make the nitrogen levels too high, therefore the fertilizer will 00:02:45.359 --> 00:02:52.488 not make the roses bloom. Now notice that one argument really builds on the other 00:02:52.488 --> 00:02:58.510 because the conclusion of the first argument is really a premise in the second 00:02:58.510 --> 00:03:04.608 argument. So, we can represent them as two separate arguments. But we can also put 00:03:04.608 --> 00:03:10.553 them together in a chain. So that the argument says, the nitrogen levels in the 00:03:10.553 --> 00:03:16.499 soil are already high. Therefore, adding fertilizer will make them too high. And 00:03:16.499 --> 00:03:23.303 therefore, adding fertilizer will not help the roses bloom. Now, if we take that 00:03:23.303 --> 00:03:29.243 whole structure and we try to represent it in a diagram, and we represent each 00:03:29.243 --> 00:03:35.793 premise with a number, which is the number that was given in the standard form, then 00:03:35.793 --> 00:03:41.580 we can simply have premise one with an arrow to premise two indicating that 00:03:41.580 --> 00:03:47.825 premise one is a reason for premise two. And then, another arrow going from premise 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 00:03:53.999 --> 00:03:59.473 two premises and two conclusions because that one kind in the middle, number two, 00:03:59.473 --> 00:04:04.604 operates as a conclusion in the first argument and a premise in the second 00:04:04.604 --> 00:04:09.736 argument. But overall, I hope the diagram, its clear. Well, I want to call this 00:04:09.736 --> 00:04:14.388 linear structure. When you have one premise giving reason for a conclusion 00:04:14.388 --> 00:04:19.451 which is then premise for another conclusion, then they form a line in the 00:04:19.451 --> 00:04:23.842 diagram them in the way that I am proposing. Arguments can have other 00:04:23.842 --> 00:04:29.424 structures, too. In particular, sometimes there's more than one premise associated 00:04:29.424 --> 00:04:34.868 with a single conclusion. And this can happen in two ways. The first, we're going 00:04:34.454 --> 00:04:39.761 to call the branching structure, and the second we're going to call the joint 00:04:39.761 --> 00:04:45.322 structure. Here is an example of the branching structure. I'm not going to go 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. 00:04:50.929 --> 00:04:56.263 The word beca use is a premise marker. So that indicates that the conclusion is 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 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 00:05:06.315 --> 00:05:11.922 think that, that could just be put in the old linear structure that we already saw. 00:05:11.922 --> 00:05:18.041 But then, the argument's going to look like this. I don't like horror flicks. 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 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 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, 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. 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 00:05:42.532 --> 00:05:47.654 like horror flicks. The problem is, there are two premises here but neither one is a 00:05:47.654 --> 00:05:52.423 reason for the other, as we saw in the linear structure. Instead, in this 00:05:52.423 --> 00:05:57.424 branching structure, each premise is operating independently. There's one 00:05:57.424 --> 00:06:01.888 argument. I don't like horror flicks, therefore I'm not going to go to that 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 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 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 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 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 00:06:24.685 --> 00:06:29.850 itself is enough, and they operate independently. That's what makes this a 00:06:29.850 --> 00:06:35.388 branching structure instead of a linear structure. Let's diagram it and you'll see 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 00:06:40.727 --> 00:06:45.615 an arrow between premise one and the conclusion two. And then, there's a 00:06:45.615 --> 00:06:50.917 separate argument, so you draw another arrow from one star, another premise, to 00:06:50.917 --> 00:06:56.726 conclusion two. And that's okay. But, notice that it doesn't show you that both 00:06:56.726 --> 00:07:02.427 premises are reasons for the same conclusion. So, to capture t hat aspect of 00:07:02.427 --> 00:07:08.128 the structure, that both Premise one and Premise one Star support the same 00:07:08.128 --> 00:07:14.137 conclusion, namely two. It's better to diagram it so that there's an arrow that 00:07:14.137 --> 00:07:20.533 runs independently from both premises to a single instance of conclusion two, as you 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 00:07:25.290 --> 00:07:28.949 branching structure cuz it kind of branches, it looks like the branches of a 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 00:07:32.704 --> 00:07:36.174 the idea. We're going to call it a branching structure. Next, we have to 00:07:36.174 --> 00:07:40.676 separate this branching structure from what we're going to call the joint 00:07:40.676 --> 00:07:45.812 structure. The difference is that in the branching structure, the premises provide 00:07:45.812 --> 00:07:50.630 independent support for the conclusion. Whereas, in this joint structure, they 00:07:50.630 --> 00:07:55.766 work together and they're not going to have force independent of each-other. It's 00:07:55.766 --> 00:08:00.775 like the joint in your leg, which joins together the calf with the thigh. And, if 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 00:08:05.404 --> 00:08:11.620 joint structure. Here's an example. For my birthday, my wife always gives me either a 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 00:08:17.578 --> 00:08:23.316 have given me a board game. Now, notice that the argent marker, so, indicates that 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 00:08:28.233 --> 00:08:33.150 premises. And you might think that they got a linear structure, and the argument 00:08:33.150 --> 00:08:38.191 goes something like this. My wife always gives me either a sweater or board games. 00:08:38.191 --> 00:08:43.046 Therefore, this box does not contain a sweater. Therefore, this time she gave me 00:08:43.046 --> 00:08:47.838 board game. That doesn't make any sense, right? I mean, the fact that she always 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 00:08:52.879 --> 00:08:58.967 contain a sweater. Well, okay. Let's try it again. Maybe it's a branching 00:08:58.967 --> 00:09:05.159 structure. That would mean that the argument looks like this. My wife always 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 00:09:11.171 --> 00:09:16.890 game. And, as a separat e argument, this box does not contain a sweater, therefore 00:09:16.890 --> 00:09:21.356 this time she must have given me a board game. Neither of those arguments makes any 00:09:21.356 --> 00:09:25.917 sense so it can't be a branching structure. Instead, what we have here is 00:09:25.917 --> 00:09:31.806 the two premises working together. She always gives me either a sweater or a 00:09:31.806 --> 00:09:38.006 board game. And, the second premise, this box does not contain a sweater. Those two 00:09:38.006 --> 00:09:44.205 premises have to work together. It's only jointly working together that they can 00:09:44.205 --> 00:09:50.560 support the conclusion that, this time she must have given me a board game. How can 00:09:50.560 --> 00:09:57.089 we diagram this joint structure? We can put a plus sign between premise one and 00:09:57.089 --> 00:10:02.621 premise two, then draw a line under them to show that they work together jointly. 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 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 00:10:14.158 --> 00:10:19.348 seen the linear structure, the branching structure, and the joint structure. And, 00:10:19.348 --> 00:10:24.811 we can combine more than one of these structures into a single argument. To see 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 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 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 00:10:41.900 --> 00:10:48.760 board game. This argument combines a linear structure with a joint structure. 00:10:49.120 --> 00:10:54.387 There are two argument markers. One is a conclusion marker, so, and that indicates 00:10:54.387 --> 00:10:59.721 that the eventual conclusion is that she must given me a board game this time. But 00:10:59.721 --> 00:11:05.054 there's also that new word, because, which indicates that the fact that it rattles 00:11:05.054 --> 00:11:09.598 when I shake means that it's not a sweater. So, the first stage of the 00:11:09.598 --> 00:11:15.129 argument in standard form looks like this. Premise one, this box rattles when I shake 00:11:15.129 --> 00:11:20.769 it. Therefore, conclusion, this box does not contain a sweater. Stage two says, 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 00:11:27.820 --> 00:11:34.555 board game. So, the conclusion, this time, she must have given me a board game. And, 00:11:34.555 --> 00:11:40.055 of course, the conclusion of that fir st little argument is identical with the 00:11:40.055 --> 00:11:45.698 premise of the second argument, so we can put them together into a chain. We can 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 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 00:11:56.984 --> 00:12:02.990 board game. That's how we get a linear structure combined with a joint structure. 00:12:02.990 --> 00:12:08.599 And we can use our diagram methods to diagram this argument the same way we did 00:12:08.599 --> 00:12:14.775 before. We simply start with premise one, the box rattles when I shake it. Draw an 00:12:14.775 --> 00:12:20.849 arrow down to its conclusion. Namely, the box does not contain a sweater. That's 00:12:20.849 --> 00:12:27.002 two. An then, we show that those are joint by adding a plus, premise three. Namely, 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 00:12:33.232 --> 00:12:39.540 and an arrow from those two together down to the eventual conclusion, namely, four 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 00:12:45.357 --> 00:12:50.902 goes from premise one to two, but does not go from premise one to three indicates 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 00:12:56.448 --> 00:13:01.857 use this method to diagram arguments, you have to be careful where you draw the 00:13:01.857 --> 00:13:07.197 arrows. And draw them only where there really is a rational connection. That is, 00:13:07.197 --> 00:13:12.879 where one claim is being presenting as a reason for that particular claim that the 00:13:12.879 --> 00:13:18.396 arrow is pointing towards. Now, almost all arguments can be diagrammed using these 00:13:18.396 --> 00:13:23.628 three simple structures. That is, the linear structure, the branching structure, 00:13:23.628 --> 00:13:29.199 the joint structure, and some combination of those three. You can add more premises 00:13:29.199 --> 00:13:34.430 because you can always add one plus two plus three plus four if they're four 00:13:34.430 --> 00:13:39.959 premises operating together in a joint structure. And, you can add extra arrows 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 00:13:45.646 --> 00:13:50.896 arguments using these kinds of diagrams. The method can be described in general, 00:13:50.896 --> 00:13:55.271 like this. You start by identifying the premises and the conclusions, and you 00:13:55.271 --> 00:13:59.873 number them. So that you can just have numbers instead of having to write out the 00:13:59.873 --> 00:14:04.362 whole sentence on the diagram. Then, when they work together, you put a plus sign 00:14:04.362 --> 00:14:08.908 between them and draw a line under it to indicate that they're working together. 00:14:08.908 --> 00:14:14.680 They're functioning as a group. Then, you draw an arrow from the claims that are 00:14:14.680 --> 00:14:20.096 reasons to the claims that they are reasons for. And then, you move them 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 00:14:25.170 --> 00:14:30.183 branches when it's a branching structure. But, it will be easy to rearrange them so 00:14:30.183 --> 00:14:34.952 as to show how all of the different premises and conclusions work together in 00:14:34.952 --> 00:14:40.477 a single argumentative structure. That's going to be enough to accomplish this 00:14:40.477 --> 00:14:46.400 stage of reconstruction. Namely, to organize the parts and show how they work 00:14:46.400 --> 00:14:48.972 together in the overall argument.