1
00:00:02,200 --> 00:00:07,538
Here what we want to focus on in
particular is the language of argument. We

2
00:00:07,538 --> 00:00:12,877
need to understand the language of
argument in order to be able to spot an

3
00:00:12,877 --> 00:00:18,571
argument. That is to determine when a
passage contains an argument and what part

4
00:00:18,571 --> 00:00:24,052
of the passage is that argument. So, how
can we tell when an argument is being

5
00:00:24,052 --> 00:00:28,730
given? Well recall the definition of an
argument as a series of sentences,

6
00:00:28,730 --> 00:00:33,400
statements, or propositions, where some of
them are premises and one of them is a

7
00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:38,069
conclusion, and the premises are intended
to give a reason for the conclusion. So

8
00:00:38,069 --> 00:00:43,384
the real question of when an argument has
been given comes down to the question of

9
00:00:43,384 --> 00:00:48,305
when certain sentences are intended as
reasons for other sentences. Now the

10
00:00:48,305 --> 00:00:53,686
answer is that we can tell the person's
intentions when they're speaking by which

11
00:00:53,686 --> 00:00:58,869
words they choose. So there's going to be
certain words that indicate that some

12
00:00:58,869 --> 00:01:04,950
sentences are reasons for others. Just
compare these two sentences. I am tall and

13
00:01:04,950 --> 00:01:13,914
I am good at sports. And compare that to,
I am tall, so I am good at sports. Now

14
00:01:13,914 --> 00:01:18,793
notice that you can take the first
sentence, I am tall and I am good at

15
00:01:18,793 --> 00:01:24,290
sports, and switch it around. I am good at
sports and I am tall. Switching doesn't

16
00:01:24,290 --> 00:01:29,306
make any difference, but it's very
different if you say, I am tall, so I am

17
00:01:29,306 --> 00:01:34,460
good at sports. That's very different
from, I am good at sports, so I am tall.

18
00:01:34,460 --> 00:01:39,043
So we know from the fact that you can
switch around the and sentence, and you

19
00:01:39,043 --> 00:01:43,506
cannot switch around the so sentence. The
word so introduces something very

20
00:01:43,506 --> 00:01:48,090
different from just conjoining the two
claims. But then what's the difference?

21
00:01:48,090 --> 00:01:53,891
Well, the difference is that when you use
the word, and, you're simply stating the

22
00:01:53,891 --> 00:01:59,402
two facts. I am tall. I am good at sports,
and the and says that they're both true.

23
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

24
00:02:04,914 --> 00:02:10,110
for the other. If you say, I am tall, so I
am good at sports, then you're suggesting

25
00:02:10,110 --> 00:02:14,577
that the reason why you're good at sports
is that you're tall. But if you say, I'm

26
00:02:14,577 --> 00:02:19,876
good at sports so. I am tall, then you're
indicating that the fact that you're good

27
00:02:19,876 --> 00:02:24,315
at sports is some kind of evidence that
you must be tall. Maybe because you can

28
00:02:24,315 --> 00:02:28,698
only be good at sports if you're tall,
which isn't true. That just shows it's a

29
00:02:28,698 --> 00:02:32,687
bad argument, but it is an argument.
Because by using the word so, you're

30
00:02:32,687 --> 00:02:37,295
indicating that one of the sentences is a
reason for the other. Of course, the word,

31
00:02:37,295 --> 00:02:41,734
so, is not the only word that plays this
role in arguments, or has this function.

32
00:02:41,734 --> 00:02:47,909
You can also say. I am tall, therefore I
am good at sports. Or I am tall, thus I am

33
00:02:47,909 --> 00:02:54,453
good at sports. Or I am tall, hence I am
good at sports. Or I am tall, accordingly

34
00:02:54,453 --> 00:03:00,186
I am good at sports. All of these
different pairs of sentences. Play the

35
00:03:00,186 --> 00:03:05,488
same role. They indicate that there's an
argument there. Namely, the fact that I'm

36
00:03:05,488 --> 00:03:10,790
tall is a reason for the conclusion that
I'm good at sports. So we're going to call

37
00:03:10,790 --> 00:03:16,025
all of these words argument markers,
because they mark or indicate the presence

38
00:03:16,025 --> 00:03:21,828
of an argument. Next we want to
distinguish two different kinds of arguing

39
00:03:21,828 --> 00:03:28,192
markers. So far, we've looked at so, and
therefore, and thus, and accordingly. And

40
00:03:28,192 --> 00:03:34,898
each of those indicates that the sentence
right after it is a conclusion. And the

41
00:03:34,898 --> 00:03:40,257
other sentence in the pair is a premise.
So we're going to call these conclusion

42
00:03:40,257 --> 00:03:44,740
markers because they indicate that the
sentence right after them is a conclusion.

43
00:03:44,740 --> 00:03:50,343
But there are other argument markers that
also indicate arguments in the same way.

44
00:03:50,343 --> 00:03:56,089
What they indicate is that the sentence
after them is a reason, or a premise, not

45
00:03:56,089 --> 00:04:01,190
a conclusion. For example, I can say, I'm
good a sports because I am tall. Now the

46
00:04:01,745 --> 00:04:07,440
word because indicates that the fact that
I'm tall is a reason for the conclusion

47
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:13,066
that I'm good at sports. It doesn't mean
that the sentence after the word because

48
00:04:13,066 --> 00:04:18,552
is a conclusion. Instead, it means that
the sentence after the word because, is a

49
00:04:18,552 --> 00:04:23,483
reason, or a premise. So we're going to
call it a reason maker, or a premise

50
00:04:23,483 --> 00:04:28,831
marker. And there are other reason markers
as well. You could say, I am good at

51
00:04:28,831 --> 00:04:34,521
sports, for I am tall. I am good at sports
as I am tall. I am good at sports f or the

52
00:04:34,521 --> 00:04:40,002
reason that I am tall. I am good at sports
and the reason why is that I am tall.

53
00:04:40,002 --> 00:04:45,482
There are lots of different ways to
indicate that the fact that I am tall is a

54
00:04:45,482 --> 00:04:50,963
reason for the conclusion that I am good
at sports. All of these words, both the

55
00:04:50,963 --> 00:04:56,305
conclusion markers and the reason markers
indicate that there is an argument

56
00:04:56,305 --> 00:05:01,482
present. But only in some cases. You can't
just look at the word and figure out

57
00:05:01,482 --> 00:05:06,896
whether it's an argument marker or not.
You have to think about the role that it's

58
00:05:06,896 --> 00:05:12,178
playing. A perfect example of that is an
other reason marker. Since. You can say, I

59
00:05:12,178 --> 00:05:17,461
am good at sports since I am tall. And
then it looks like you are presenting the

60
00:05:17,461 --> 00:05:23,505
fact that you are tall as a reason why
you're good at sports. But the word since

61
00:05:23,505 --> 00:05:29,198
doesn't always play that role. After all
you can say the Sun has been up since

62
00:05:29,198 --> 00:05:34,667
seven o'clock this morning. And that
doesn't mean that somehow the sun has an

63
00:05:34,667 --> 00:05:39,982
alarm clock that causes it to come up
right at seven o'clock. All it's saying is

64
00:05:39,982 --> 00:05:45,097
that, the sun has been up after the time
of seven o'clock. And all times since

65
00:05:45,097 --> 00:05:50,212
then. It doesn't indicate any kind of
rational relation, such as the fact that

66
00:05:50,212 --> 00:05:55,750
it's seven o'clock being a reason why the
sun came up. Or what about this one? It's

67
00:05:55,750 --> 00:06:01,427
been raining since my vacation began. Very
disappointing, but you're not saying that

68
00:06:01,427 --> 00:06:06,702
it's raining because your vacation began,
as if there's some kind of plot against

69
00:06:06,702 --> 00:06:11,846
you in the nature of weather, and that
would be very paranoid. All you're saying

70
00:06:11,846 --> 00:06:16,925
is that, it has been raining every day
since the time when your vacation began,

71
00:06:16,925 --> 00:06:22,394
or every day after your vacation began. So
the since there indicates just a temporal

72
00:06:22,394 --> 00:06:27,102
relation, not some kind of rational
relation. And what this shows us is that

73
00:06:27,102 --> 00:06:32,096
you can't just look for the word since and
always mark it as an argument marker. You

74
00:06:32,096 --> 00:06:37,149
have to think about what the word since is
doing in that context. And that'll be true

75
00:06:37,149 --> 00:06:41,905
for a lot of other reason markers and
conclusion markers as well. Here's another

76
00:06:41,905 --> 00:06:46,423
example of the same point but with a
conclusion marker. The word so. The word

77
00:06:46,423 --> 00:06:51,298
so sometimes indicates that the sentence
after it's a conclusion. And the sentence

78
00:06:51,298 --> 00:06:55,994
before it's a reason. But it can also
indicate something entirely different. You

79
00:06:55,994 --> 00:07:01,128
don't need to eat so much. So there
doesn't indicate that much is a reason for

80
00:07:01,128 --> 00:07:06,717
anything. The word so is getting used in
an entirely different way, that should be

81
00:07:06,717 --> 00:07:11,611
obvious. But the point again is that you
can't just look for the word so and label

82
00:07:11,611 --> 00:07:16,305
it as an argument marker. You have to
think about the function that it's playing

83
00:07:16,305 --> 00:07:20,881
in the particular context. Unfortunately
sometimes it's hard to tell whether a

84
00:07:20,881 --> 00:07:25,340
particular word is being used as an
argument marker or not. Here's an example.

85
00:07:25,340 --> 00:07:30,034
Suppose someone says, the liberal party
has been dropping in the polls since the

86
00:07:30,034 --> 00:07:35,210
conservative party held their convention.
And they might be saying, the liberal

87
00:07:35,210 --> 00:07:40,925
party has been dropping in the polls. And
all times after the conservative party

88
00:07:40,925 --> 00:07:46,964
held their convention. But they might be
saying something stronger. They might be

89
00:07:46,964 --> 00:07:52,474
saying that the liberal party has been
dropping in the polls because the

90
00:07:52,474 --> 00:07:58,664
conservative party held their convention,
or because of something that happened at

91
00:07:58,664 --> 00:08:04,929
that convention. How can you tell whether
this person means to be claiming simply a

92
00:08:04,929 --> 00:08:11,642
temporal progression or some kind of
reason for the drop in the polls? One

93
00:08:11,642 --> 00:08:17,314
trick, that's very useful, is to try to
substitute a different word. If their

94
00:08:17,314 --> 00:08:23,137
claim means, pretty much, the same if they
had said, the liberal party has been

95
00:08:23,137 --> 00:08:28,734
dropping in the polls because the
conservative party held it's convention,

96
00:08:28,734 --> 00:08:34,272
then you're claiming there's a rational
relation. But if you can't substitute

97
00:08:34,272 --> 00:08:39,637
because for since, then the word since is
not being used as an argument marker. Now

98
00:08:39,637 --> 00:08:45,003
sometimes that's just going to be clear.
When it's not clear, what are you going to

99
00:08:45,003 --> 00:08:50,173
do? We can ask the person who's talking.
You can say, well tell me, are you saying

100
00:08:50,173 --> 00:08:55,473
that the Liberal Party has no following in
the polls because of the Conservative

101
00:08:55,473 --> 00:09:00,446
Party convention, or are you just saying
that that's the time when they were

102
00:09:00,446 --> 00:09:06,086
falling? They might be able to answer your
question. Of course they still might not,

103
00:09:06,086 --> 00:09:11,962
because sometimes it's just not clear. You
simply have to try your best to figure out

104
00:09:11,962 --> 00:09:17,700
what the person's saying, and if you can't
figure it out, it might of course just be

105
00:09:17,700 --> 00:09:23,300
because they're not clear. After all, many
people speak very loosely. And then it's

106
00:09:23,300 --> 00:09:28,624
hard for you to tell what they're saying.
They might not even know themselves

107
00:09:28,624 --> 00:09:34,523
exactly what they're saying. But a good
test is whether you can substitute another

108
00:09:34,523 --> 00:09:39,661
argument marker for the term that's
unclear. That won't solve all your

109
00:09:39,661 --> 00:09:45,385
problems, but when you can substitute an
argument marker for a particular word,

110
00:09:45,385 --> 00:09:51,477
that shows that, that word in this context
is being used to indicate that something

111
00:09:51,477 --> 00:09:57,055
is a premise, that gives a reason for
something else which is the conclusion.

112
00:09:57,055 --> 00:10:03,078
Namely, it shows that there's an argument
being given in that passage. The one last

113
00:10:03,078 --> 00:10:09,125
word that we have to talk about is that
little word if. Sometimes it's linked with

114
00:10:09,125 --> 00:10:15,245
the word then, in an if-then clause, which
is also called a conditional. We'll talk a

115
00:10:15,245 --> 00:10:21,440
lot about conditions later in this course.
But for now I just want to make one point.

116
00:10:21,760 --> 00:10:27,675
The word if might seem like an argument
marker because it's often used in

117
00:10:27,675 --> 00:10:33,590
arguments. For example, I might say, if
I'm rich enough, I can buy a baseball

118
00:10:33,590 --> 00:10:39,664
team. And I am rich enough, so I can buy a
baseball team. Now, that would be an

119
00:10:39,664 --> 00:10:46,628
argument. But if all I say is if I'm rich
enough, I can buy a baseball team. When I

120
00:10:46,628 --> 00:10:53,131
know I'm not rich enough, so I would never
assert the if clause that says I am rich

121
00:10:53,131 --> 00:10:59,451
enough, then that little if sentence is
not being used to indicate an argument at

122
00:10:59,451 --> 00:11:05,375
all. It's just saying, if I am rich enough
then I can buy a baseball team. It's not

123
00:11:05,375 --> 00:11:11,446
saying that I am rich enough and it's not
saying that I can buy a baseball team. So

124
00:11:11,446 --> 00:11:17,516
the word if by itself does not indicate an
argument. It sets a pattern for argument,

125
00:11:17,516 --> 00:11:23,330
if one thing then another, or the one
thing therefore the other. But the if one

126
00:11:23,330 --> 00:11:28,771
thing, then another, doesn't, by itself,
indicate any argument at all, because it

127
00:11:28,771 --> 00:11:33,930
doesn't assert that if clause which is
also called the antecedent of the

128
00:11:33,930 --> 00:11:39,513
conditional. So, we are not going to count
the word if as an argument marker. Now

129
00:11:39,513 --> 00:11:45,308
we've learned how to identify an argument.
Pretty simple, huh? But just to make sure

130
00:11:45,308 --> 00:11:48,701
you've got it straight, let's do a few
exercises.