James Griffin Basics of Fracking The fracking process is a method of drilling used in petroleum extraction or extraction of any natural gas deep in the earth. Energy companies can now extract natural gas and oil from rock formations and deep reserves it previously did not exist. A simulation process known as fracking is used. The energy industry, especially the natural gas markets has been impacted enormously. It involves pumping chemicals, sand, and water mixtures into a reserve with high amounts of pressure, which makes surrounding rock formations fracture and opens up passageways for oil and gas to flow (Van Cleave, 2018). Misconceptions Fracking, however, has a wide variety of misconceptions. For instance, many believe that the chemicals pumped to the ground are unhealthy and dangerous. This is, however, not the case as ninety-nine-point-five percent of the chemicals contain a mixture of water and sand and most of them are found in household items. Additionally, it is unlikely that they would leak into the groundwater. It is also false that fracking causes earthquakes. It, however, causes seismic activity which can barely be felt on the earth's surface. The context of the topic is trying to give out things that accompany fracking, may it be positive or negative impacts (Costa, 2017). Conceptions Planning of the fracking process requires permitting, lease acquisition, community engagement, and detailed planning for operations to commence. Therefore, it is quite false that well organizations steal public land (Valerio, 2017). Fracking also does not cause faucet water to be flammable. The topic is a significant issue because it gives a way in which a country to be FRACKING PROCESS 2 independent by coming up with its petroleum products, which reduces imports and increases exports (Fraction, 2014). Identification of components of Fracking Process Different components are used in the fracking process. Predominant fluids are used treatment of fractures. Fracturing fluids are water-based and are mixed slickwater and used in the gas shale plays. Friction reducers are added to enable fracturing fluids to be pumped into the reserve at a much higher rate. Other additives are used in the fracking process in addition to friction reducers. Biocides are used to prevent microorganism growth and reduce fracture biofouling. Metal pipes are protected from corrosion by oxygen scavengers. Acids are used to clean the wellbore area of mud damage caused by drilling. These fluids are also used to carry propping agents such as sintered bauxite or silica sand that get deposited in the fractures that are induced. The main point about the topic is that fracking has a lot of significance in a country and there are several ways in which it can be carried out to make it safer and economical. Description of the Components of the Argument Law of Sustainability Even though fracking frees a country from being dependent on foreign gas, there are several arguments made against it. For instance, there is an argument that fracking breaks the laws of sustainability. This is a pro because it supports that fracking makes the earth “sick” and causes environmental damage. On the other side, the argument against fracking is a con because it discourages and tries to bring down fracking something which makes a country too dependent on other countries for petroleum substances. Fracking chemicals may cause damage to the health of surrounding people which may lead to death. Human activities together with natural cycles cause global warming. After the deep reserve is developed, some of the fluids produced by FRACKING PROCESS 3 fracking are carried together with oil and gas to the surface, while the rest is left as a residue in the ground. It has become widely used since its widespread prominence. Poor Disposal of Waste Products Another pro of this argument is that it reveals the truth that companies pour excess fracking waste into the ground that causes the earth to shake, resulting in earthquakes. Also, it helps in fighting for environmental erosion by asserting that fracking may lead to a reduction of finite earth resources (Angiola, 2016). Premises Countries should find sustainable ways to obtain natural gas. Several states are drafting stringent legislation to govern the industry. Natural gas may be produced from the sun, Carbon dioxide, and water. Research is being carried out on gas fracking as an alternative method to hydraulic fracking. Also, there are missing premises on how the fracking process should be carried with less emission of waste as well as environmental degradation. Assumptions and Biases. There are several assumptions made on fracking. For example, it is assumed that the overall positive impacts of overweigh the negative impacts yet the arm caused by fracking is more compared to the good outcomes of it. Moreover, there is a bias on components used in the fracking process, such as friction reducers, predominant, and additives. (Loris, 2012). Deductive Argument It is a kind of logical thinking that begins with an idea that is general as well and reaches a particular conclusion. In every country, there are several arguments arising for fracking. The arguments show that fracking is a significant issue because it has led to environmental concerns. FRACKING PROCESS 4 Nevertheless, the argument is a pro because it supports the opinion that fracking is a safe and cost-effective means because non-existing gases and oil are collected. Besides, another pro of the argument is that fracking provides security for energy supply and has provided jobs. Therefore, the argument is true because the premises and conclusions are true. The argument still uses formal and informal fallacies. The argument is sound because it has a good description and elaboration of any point made on the argument (Handayani et al, 2019). Inductive Argument Inductive reasoning is a kind of reasoning that draws a general conclusion from a set of certain observations. For example, the argument encourages the government to invest in fracking. Even though it has some pros, the cons outweigh the pros because fracking leads to the degradation of the environment. Still, the risk exposure to those working in fracking plants overweighs the pro on job provision. The argument is strong and has good conclusions because it reveals that the negative outcomes of fracking cause more effects than the importance it has. There is the use of an analogical type of argument, which is from the induction and deriving of a conclusion from the comparison of similarities of both arguments on fracking. The information is not feasible. This is because the verdict conclusion cannot be defeated by any additional information since the premises is well-supported (Ellen, 2013). Fracking Argument This is a strong argument in that fracking has become more dangerous than ever with the new technologies and the arguments that are used. Arguments on fracking are casual in that we talk about how cost-effective it is and how it has affected the environment. The fracking argument is defeasible because if people who oppose fracking studied how it works and how it affects the environment, some would change their opinions. People who support fracking would FRACKING PROCESS 5 also change their opinions if more information on fracking would prove that it pollutes the environment (Frumkin et al, 2018). Statistical Fallacies Data on fracking can play common tricks on a person. This is referred to as statistical fallacies and it may lead to errors in data analysis and interpretation. Some researchers select results that fit their claim leave out those that don’t. This may be used as a scam to lie to the public about fracking. FRACKING PROCESS 6 References Angiola, G. (2016). Banning fracking is the only rational option. Costa, A. A. (2017). As The Earth Heats Up, Brazil Digs Deeper: The stakes for preventing large Das, D. (2015). Algal Biorefinery: An Integrated Approach. Ellen Cantarow, TRUTHOUT, (2013). Former Mobile VP Warns of Fracking and Climate Change Fracknation,(2014).Retrievedfrom:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM6D_h Pcox8ab_channel=YouTubeMovies Frumkin, H., & Patz, J. (2018). Fracking and Climate Change. Jama, 319(14), 15081508. Handayani, R. D., & Putra, P. D. (2019). Student Cognition in the Context of a Climate System: Loris, N. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Valerio, M. A. (2017). Exploring perceptions of fracking and environmental health Van Cleave, M. J. (2018). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Version 1.3. SCI-20038-XE167 Logical Reasoni… Project & Resources Table of Contents Announcements Project Discussions JG Project Results FAQs Calendar James Gri?n Support Tools Project Instruc!ons Project Instruc!ons # " Listen ! Competency In this project, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following competency: Evaluate arguments to determine logical soundness of posi!on Scenario You work for OneEarth, an environmental consul!ng company that specializes in building-condi!on assessments, contaminated-site remedia!on, and energy audits. Founded by an environmentally concerned ci!zen in 2010, OneEarth has emerged as the highest-quality and most comprehensive environmental services company in the northern region of the United States. Recently, ardent local representa!ve Sy Bill Wright contacted OneEarth for assistance evalua!ng the validity of arguments related to fracking. He agreed to meet with any interest or advocacy groups that wanted to discuss their posi!ons to ensure that he was well-informed about the controversial topic. Now, he needs OneEarth’s help examining the arguments and the evidence they provided to ensure that he makes a sound decision. He believes that OneEarth, a highly-respected environmental firm with strong connec!ons to the local community, could provide cri!cal insights to his evalua!on of the advocacy groups’ evidence. Aware of your previous work advising on fossil : fuel management, your manager Claire DeAir has asked you to serve as a liaison to representa!ve Wright. Direc!ons Representa!ve Wright has provided you with all of the informa!on he received from the advocacy or interest groups that he entertained the previous week. This informa!on in available in his email in the Suppor!ng Materials sec!on. In your posi!on paper (750–1,250 words), you will evaluate the arguments of each group, specifically examining their conclusions, premises, assump!ons, and evidence. Using your analysis, representa!ve Wright will be able to determine how to take the soundest posi!on on the controversial topic. In your paper, include the following components: A discussion of the common concep!ons and misconcep!ons about the topic What is the topic? What are the common concep!ons and misconcep!ons about this topic? What is the context of the topic? Why is the topic a significant issue? What was your own opinion as a consultant prior to conduc!ng research? An iden!fica!on and descrip!on the components of the argument What is the main point or conclusion about the topic? What are the main arguments and subarguments about the topic? What are the premises (reasons for thinking the conclusion is true)? Are there any missing premises? What are the assump!ons and biases? A recogni!on and evalua!on of the deduc!ve and induc!ve arguments If the argument is deduc!ve (providing premises that guarantee their conclusions): Is the argument valid? (Are the premises and the conclusions true?) What types of formal and/or informal logical fallacies are used? Is the argument sound? : If the argument is induc!ve (aiming to provide premises that make the conclusion more probable): Is the argument strong (more probable conclusion in light of premises) or weak (less probable Is the argument strong (more probable conclusion in light of premises) or weak (less probable conclusion in light of the premises)? What type of argument is used (analogical or causal?) Is the argument defeasible? (Can more informa!on defeat the verdict that the conclusion is wellsupported by the premises?) What types of sta!s!cal fallacies are used? Refer to the Suppor!ng Materials sec!on to explore how to write e?ec!vely. What to Submit Every project has a deliverable or deliverables, which are the files that must be submi#ed before your project can be assessed. For this project, you must submit the following: Posi!on Paper (750–1,250 words) Your manager, Claire DeAir, has asked you to serve as a liaison to representa!ve Wright. You will develop a posi!on paper that evaluates advocacy groups' arguments about the topic. Using your analysis, representa!ve Wright will be able to determine how to take the soundest posi!on on the controversial topic. Suppor!ng Materials The following resource(s) may help support your work on the project: Cita!on Help Need help ci!ng your sources? Use the CfA Cita!on Guide and Cita!on Maker. Representa!ve Sy Bill Wright's Email Representa!ve Sy Bill Wright has emailed you all of the resources that the advocacy groups provided to him. You will review and evaluate each of the arguments. Reading: Wri!ng Guide : Review the tutorials and resources in the Wri!ng Guide document if you need help with the wri!ng aspects of this project. Reflect in ePor!olio Download Print Open with docReader Ac"vity Details Task: View this topic : Read all about your project here. This includes the project scenario, direc!ons for comple!ng the project, a list of what you will need to submit, and suppor!ng materials that may help you complete the project. Wed 2019/1/5 19:02 Wright, Sy Bill Materials from Advocacy Groups To: Cc: YourFirstName.YourLastName@OneEarth.com ? DeAir, Claire; ? Mission, Honor Dear [your name], Thank you for your willingness to review the resources that I’ve received from the interest groups. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Reading: New Study Says Fracking Doesn’t Contribute to Global Warming Video: The Ethics of Fracking (37:21) Reading: Former Mobil VP Warns of Fracking and Climate Change Reading: Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) Reading: Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production, Jobs, and Economic Growth Video: FrackNation - Trailer (1:41) Reading: Banning Fracking is the only Rational Option I look forward to hearing your evaluation of these arguments. Best, Sy Bill Wright Representative Rep.Wright@local.gov Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale General OneFile Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: CRITICAL FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION, JOBS, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH Date: Aug. 28, 2012 From: States News Service Publisher: States News Service Document Type: Article Length: 3,107 words Full Text: WASHINGTON -- The following information was released by the Heritage Foundation: By Nicolas Loris Abstract: Energy production on private lands in the United States has been one of the most promising success stories in recent years, at a time when the country has struggled to grow economically. A large part of the success behind this tremendous oil and gas production and jobs creation is due to an energy-extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing. Misconceptions about hydraulic fracturing abound. The Heritage Foundation's Nicolas Loris explains how, regulated effectively, hydraulic fracturing is safe-as well as necessary for energy production and job creation in the United States. While Americans continue to be disappointed by dismal jobs reports and a high unemployment rate, one of the few recent bright spots in the U.S. economy has been energy production, particularly the shale oil and shale gas revolution. In fact, the Yale Graduates Energy Study Group calculated that in 2010 alone, the consumer surplus (the consumer savings or gain from reductions in price) from shale gas production was worth over $100 billion.[1] The technological one-two punch of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has created a remarkable energy boom and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. The possibility of continuously low natural gas prices is turning the United States into a prime destination for chemical companies and other businesses that rely on abundant amounts of natural gas. While the energy development has been substantially positive, the process of hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny over concerns about contamination of drinking water, the use of chemicals, wastewater management, and the potential for causing earthquakes. All 35 of the oil and gas producing states have an impressive and long track record of regulating hydraulic fracturing, yet the federal government is proposing onerous and duplicative regulations. Congress should recognize the states' effectiveness in regulating hydraulic fracturing and prevent federal attempts that would unreasonably slow down the success of oil and gas development. How Does Hydraulic Fracturing Work? Hydraulic fracturing, known as "fracking," is a process during which producers inject a fluid consisting of water, sand, and chemical additives deep into the ground in order to free resources, including oil, natural gas, geothermal energy, and even water trapped in deep rock formations.[2] With respect to shale gas (natural gas lodged in shale rock formations), producers drill wells that are on average 7,500 feet below the surface, thousands of feet below drinking water aquifers. After a company completes the well drilling (approximately two to four weeks), it then fracks the rock formation at high pressures that extend for several hundred feet away from the gas well. This process takes between three and five days, at which point the well will produce natural gas for 20 years to 50 years, or longer. After the drilling, the company also restores the land with soil and new vegetation, leaving only the wellhead and collection tanks. Some of the fracking fluid rises to the surface through steel-cased well bores and is temporarily stored in lined pits or steel tanks. Companies then recycle and reuse the wastewater or store it in an injection well deep underground.[3] Used in over one million wells in the United States for more than 60 years, fracking has been successfully used to retrieve more than 7 billion barrels of oil and over 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.[4] Just one trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to heat 15 million homes for one year.[5] The development of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has increased access to proven reserves for oil and natural gas in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming. Although geologists and energy companies have long been aware of the shale oil and shale gas reserves, the technological advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are helping some regions of the country extract those resources and buck the economic downturn. In North Dakota, 4,600 wells produced 7.5 million barrels of crude oil in December 2009. In January 2012, North Dakota had 6,600 wells pumping out 16.9 million barrels of oil.[6] In Pennsylvania, natural gas production more than quadrupled between 2009 and 2011.[7] The oil and gas boom has created work for geologists, engineers, rig workers, truck drivers, and pipe welders. That also means a higher demand for restaurants, repair shops, hardware stores, hotels, and laundromats in those areas. Energy production could be a catalyst of economic revitalization across the country, and the fracking process will be essential for the development of America's future oil and gas production. Fracking: Critical for Economic Growth Natural gas is already a critical part of America's energy portfolio and consequently a critical part of the country's economic growth. Not only does natural gas provide over 25 percent of electricity generation, natural gas, and other gases extracted from natural gas provide a feedstock for fertilizers, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, waste treatment, food processing, fueling industrial boilers, and much more. Although natural gas prices in the United States have historically been volatile, the abundance of shale gas brings the possibility of low, stable prices. North America has approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet of recoverable natural gas that would supply 175 years worth of natural gas at current consumption rates. Further, the National Petroleum Council estimates that fracking will allow 60 percent to 80 percent of all domestically drilled wells during the next 10 years to remain viable. The abundance of natural gas makes the United States an attractive place to do business, especially for energy-intensive industries. In what could be a growing trend, Royal Dutch Shell recently announced plans to build a petrochemical plant in western Pennsylvania and cited the proximity to natural gas production as the reason for the location. The $2 billion plant will create 10,000 construction jobs and thousands of permanent jobs for Beaver County, Pennsylvania.[8] A new KPMG analysis of the U.S. chemical industry emphasizes that "[w]ith a new and abundant source of low-cost feedstock, the US market has transformed to become one of the most advantageous markets for chemical production in the world."[9] Shuttered steel towns like Youngstown, Ohio, are seeing a reemergence of manufacturing employment opportunities. In Youngstown, VandM Star, the pipe and tube producer, is building a factory to manufacture seamless pipes for hydraulic fracturing that will employ 350 people.[10] Hydraulic Fracturing: Facts and Myths Despite the length of time that hydraulic fracturing has been used, and despite the fact that fracking has helped create a burst in American energy production and economic growth, fracking has received much negative attention due to misreporting and dramatic exaggerations. Much of the public's concern over hydraulic fracturing has been over the possibility of contaminated drinking water, the chemicals used in fracking, the potential to create earthquakes, and wastewater management. Such concerns do not take into account the federal and state laws and regulations that address these very issues. Following are the four most prevalent mythsfollowed by the facts: Myth #1: Hydraulic fracturing threatens underground water sources and has led to the contamination of drinking water. Fact: Hydraulic fracturing is subject to both federal and state regulations, and there have been no instances of fracking causing contamination of drinking water. Groundwater aquifers sit thousands of feet above the level at which fracking takes place, and companies construct wells with steelsurface casings and cement barriers to prevent gas migration. Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Groundwater Protection Council, and independent agencies have found no evidence of groundwater contamination.[11] In May 2011, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that "I am not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself affected water although there are investigations ongoing."[12] Three of those investigations are in Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania, and thus far the EPA has found no evidence of contamination; in the case of Wyoming, however, the EPA published faulty data with speculative and heavily contested conclusions. In all three cases the EPA ignored state regulators' management of the alleged problems.[13] Although previous EPA analysis of hydraulic fracturing found the process to be safe, the EPA now plans to publish a full study on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water that ostensibly demonstrates lack of safety. Analysis of the EPA's "Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources" by the nonprofit technology research and development organization Battelle highlighted a number of concerns, including cherry-picking of data, lack of peer review, poor quality control, and a lack of transparency.[14] Myth #2: The chemicals used in the fracking process are foreign chemicals that industry hides from the public. Fact: Fracking fluid, made primarily of sand and water, uses a small percentage of chemicals that have common household applications and are regulated by the state. The fluid used in hydraulic fracturing is 99.5 percent water and sand. The 0.5 percent of additives (typically between three and 12 different chemicals) depends on the composition of the shale formation that varies by region and by well. The combination of additives function to dissolve minerals, prevent bacteria growth and pipe corrosion, minimize friction, and keep the fractures open or propped up. All chemicals used in the fracking process have common applications from swimming-pool cleaners and laundry detergents to cosmetics, and even ice cream.[15] None of these chemicals is hidden from the public, and federal law stipulates that a company must provide detailed chemical information sheets to emergency personnel in case of an accident. While states that have hydraulic fracturing laws have their own stipulations for chemical disclosure, the U.S. Department of Energy, in collaboration with the Groundwater Protection Council and industry, created the website FracFocus.org. The site provides a full list of chemicals used in the fracking process and companies voluntarily disclose the chemical makeup for specific wells across the country.[16] FracFocus allows users to search wells by operator, state, and county. Myth #3: Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing is dangerous and unregulated. Fact: Companies dispose of, and recycle, wastewater using many different methods, all of which are compliant with existing federal and state laws. Companies typically use around 4 million gallons of water-what a golf course uses in one week-to fracture a well by using water from lakes, rivers, or municipal supplies. Much of that water remains in the ground; about 15 percent to 20 percent of the water returns to the surface by flowing back through the well.[17] The flowback water contains the chemicals used in the fracking process and can also collect other naturally harmful substances in the ground. This water is never used for drinking and the disposal is subject to federal and state regulations. States have different regulations for disposal, and companies employ a variety of methods including temporary storage of wastewater in steel tanks or contained pits. More companies are recycling or reusing the flowback water because it makes both economic and environmental sense. Other disposal methods include storing wastewater underground in injection wells that states regulate individually, and the EPA regulates under the Safe Water Drinking Act.[18] The demand for wastewater disposal and recycling is creating opportunities for new companies with emerging technologies to treat wastewater.[19] There have been concerns, in Pennsylvania for instance, that treating wastewater at sewage treatment plants that discharge into rivers supplying drinking water would contaminate drinking water with radioactive material. But Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection found levels of radioactivity well within federal and state standards. Norm Zellers, manager of the Sunbury Generation treatment facility in Synder County, Pennsylvania, emphasized that "[y]ou can have more radioactivity on a bunch of bananas in the store or on a granite countertop."[20] Wastewater management is another aspect of the fracking process that has been well regulated by existing federal and state laws, and the increased demand for wastewater treatment has driven the process to be cleaner and cheaper. Myth #4: Fracking causes earthquakes. Fact: The fracking process itself does not cause earthquakes; in rare instances, the use of underground injection wells (for storage) has caused earthquakes. Induced seismic activity from many underground energy activities is not a new phenomenon and has been closely monitored by the Department of Energy. After a series of small earthquakes-ranging from 2.1 to 4.0 on the Richter scale-in Ohio and Arkansas near oil and gas sites, many have raised concerns about future tremors resulting from hydraulic fracturing. But the fracking process itself did not cause these earthquakes. The use of injection wells, an efficient and cost-effective way to dispose of briny wastewater, produced the seismic activity. Instances of seismic activity are rare; out of 30,000 injection wells, there have only been eight events of induced seismic activity-none of which caused significant property damage or injury. Induced seismicity does not occur only from oil and gas extraction. A recent National Research Council study highlights the fact that geothermal activities (capturing and using heat stored in the earth's core) have caused relatively small earthquakes (some felt, some not) at more frequent rates from far fewer projects.[21] The study also warns that continuously injecting carbon dioxide at high pressures (carbon capture and sequestration from coal plants) could induce earthquakes of higher magnitudes.[22] Seismic activity as a result of underground activity is also not a new phenomenon. The U.S. Department of Energy has been observing and monitoring induced seismic activity from energy-related activities since the 1930s. While companies that induce seismic activity should be liable for any damage they cause, calls for bans of hydraulic fracturing or the use of underground injection wells are unfounded. State Regulation, Federal Redundancy One of the reasons why hydraulic fracturing has been so successful in promoting oil and gas development, while maintaining a strong environmental record, is the state regulatory regime. States in which fracturing takes place each have comprehensive regulation that ensures that oil and gas companies operate safely and in an environmentally sensible manner, and administer fines and implement punitive measures to correct any wrongdoing. In November 2011, the EPA's Lisa Jackson acknowledged the states' role: "States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn't have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in."[23] But states are not just now stepping up-states have effectively regulated oil and gas production and hydraulic fracturing for decades. In Pennsylvania, fracking has been taking place since the 1960s with nearly 100,000 oil and gas wells fracked and no instances of contamination of groundwater. The same clean record is true for Ohio, where over 70,000 oil and gas wells have been fracked since the 1960s. The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission has compiled statistics for all 50 states, each of which has a flawless record when it comes to fracking and groundwater protection.[24] Detailed in the appendix of this paper is an overview of each state's regulations regarding chemical disclosure, groundwater protection, and wastewater management, as well as links to each state's statutes and regulations that pertain to oil and gas operations. Despite the states' effectiveness in regulating hydraulic fracturing and despite Jackson's comments, the EPA is pursuing onerous and duplicative regulations with weak scientific support. Many activities of oil and gas production are already subject to a number of major federal regulations, including the Clean Air Act (emissions), the Clean Water Act (surface water discharge), the Safe Drinking Water Act (wastewater management), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (chemical disclosure for emergency responders), and the National Environmental Policy Act (production on federal lands), among others.[25] While many of these statutes are in need of serious reform,[26] the White House's recently proposed fracking rules are unneeded and duplicative. The Department of the Interior released a draft rule on public disclosure of chemicals on federal lands despite the fact that states have successfully managed chemical disclosure.[27] Congress has also introduced legislation that would regulate fracking fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) despite the fact that the 2005 Energy Policy Act codified that Congress never intended to regulate fracking (except when using diesel oil in the fracking process under SDWA).[28] Hydraulic fracturing had been safely regulated for a quarter century before Congress even enacted SDWA in 1974. In April 2012, the EPA announced its first air-emission rules for hydraulic fracturing. Rather than being aimed at fracking itself, this is a backdoor global warming regulation: The rule highlights the supposed environmental benefits of reducing emission of methane, a greenhouse gas. The EPA's rule miserably fails the cost-benefit test; the agency's own analysis projects $745 million in annual costs and just $11 million to $19 million in environmental benefits. Moreover, the EPA has grossly overestimated methane emissions from the wells.[29] The rule also fails to quantify any benefits from reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP).[30] While the rule asserts that benefits exist, the draft also says that "with the data available, we [the EPA] are not able to provide credible health benefit estimates for the reduction in exposure to [hazardous air pollutants], ozone and [particulate matter] (2.5 microns and less) (PM2.5) for these rules."[31] Congress: Prevent Federal Overreach on Fracking The states' effective regulation underscores the need for Members of Congress to prevent federal intervention that would unnecessarily stall the oil and gas boom and drive up costs for producers (and thus consumers). The states with tremendous oil and natural gas reserves have the most to gain economically, and have the greatest incentive to protect their environments. States have qualified experts to handle the regulatory requirements surrounding hydraulic fracturing. To that end, Congress should: Prevent any federal agency from adding new regulations to hydraulic fracturing. The proposed federal regulations are unnecessary and duplicative. Prohibit federal regulators from using any statute to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas regulations would drive up the cost of energy for no meaningful hange in the Earth's temperature. Reaffirm the states' authority and effectiveness in regulating hydraulic fracturing. The states have effectively handled the disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process and have effectively protected drinking water for decades. Fracking: It's Important Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling should be celebrated as important technological progress that has opened new opportunities for the safe development of affordable, reliable energy. The facts and history of hydraulic fracturing indicate that many of the fears associated with the process are exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Entrepreneurs created an energy boom and state regulators have been ensuring that energy production occurs in an environmentally sensible way. Congress should keep it that way. -Nicolas D. Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation Research Assistant Katie Tubb contributed substantially to the research in this report. Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 States News Service Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) "HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: CRITICAL FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION, JOBS, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH." States News Service, 28 Aug. 2012. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A300986617/ITOF?u=nhc_main&sid=ITOF&xid=8bb81240. Accessed 6 May 2021. Gale Document Number: GALE|A300986617 Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Version 1.4 Matthew J. Van Cleave Lansing Community College Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking by Matthew J. Van Cleave is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Table of contents Preface Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 1.1 What is an argument? 1.2 Identifying arguments 1.3 Arguments vs. explanations 1.4 More complex argument structures 1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form 1.6 Validity 1.7 Soundness 1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments 1.9 Arguments with missing premises 1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting 1.11 Evaluative language 1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments 2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them? 2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives 2.3 Negation and disjunction 2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences 2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor” 2.6 The truth table test of validity 2.7 Conditionals 2.8 “Unless” 2.9 Material equivalence 2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements 2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference 2.12 How to construct proofs 2.13 Short review of propositional logic 2.14 Categorical logic 2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences 2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment 2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies 3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations 3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues 3.3 Analogical arguments 3.4 Causal arguments 3.5 Probability 3.6 The conjunction fallacy 3.7 The base rate fallacy 3.8 The small numbers fallacy 3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy 3.10 Gambler’s fallacy Chapter 4: Informal fallacies 4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies 4.1.1 Composition fallacy 4.1.2 Division fallacy 4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy 4.1.4 False dichotomy 4.1.5 Equivocation 4.2 Slippery slope fallacies 4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope 4.2.2 Causal slippery slope 4.3 Fallacies of relevance 4.3.1 Ad hominem 4.3.2 Straw man 4.3.3 Tu quoque 4.3.4 Genetic 4.3.5 Appeal to consequences 4.3.6 Appeal to authority Answers to exercises Glossary/Index Preface Preface This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.” The formal logic in chapter 2 is intended to give an elementary introduction to formal logic. Specifically, chapter 2 introduces several different formal methods for determining whether an argument is valid or invalid (truth tables, proofs, Venn diagrams). I contrast these formal methods with the informal method of determining validity introduced in chapter 1. What I take to be the central theoretical lesson with respect to the formal logic is simply that of understanding the difference between formal and informal methods of evaluating an argument’s validity. I believe there are also practical benefits of learning the formal logic. First and foremost, once one has internalized some of the valid forms of argument, it is easy to impose these structures on arguments one encounters. The ability to do this can be of use in evaluating an argumentative passage, especially when the argument concerns a topic with which one is not very familiar (such as on the GRE or LSAT). However, what I take to be of far more practical importance is the skill of being able to reconstruct and evaluate arguments. This skill is addressed in chapter 1, where the central ideas are that of using the principle of charity to put arguments into standard form and of using the informal test of validity to evaluate those arguments. Since the ability to reconstruct and evaluate arguments is a skill, one must practice in order to acquire it. The exercises in each section are intended to give students some practice, but in order to really master the skill, one must practice much, much more than simply completing the exercises in the text. It makes about as much sense to say that one could become a critical thinker by reading a critical thinking textbook as that one could become fluent in French by reading a French textbook. Logic and critical thinking, like learning a foreign language, takes practice because it is a skill. While chapters 1 and 2 mainly concern deductive arguments, chapter 3 addresses inductive arguments, including probabilistic and statistical fallacies. In a world in which information is commonly couched within probabilistic and statistical frameworks, understanding these basic concepts, as well as some of the common mistakes is essential for understanding our world. I have tried to i Preface write chapter 3 with an eye towards this understanding. As with all the chapters, I have tried to walk the fine line between being succinct without sacrificing depth. Chapter 4 picks out what I take to be some of the most common fallacies, both formal and informal. In my experience, many critical thinking textbooks end up making the fallacies sound obvious; one is often left wondering how anyone could commit such a fallacy. In my discussion of the fallacies I have tried to correct this not only in the particular examples I use in the text and exercises, but also by discussing what makes a particular fallacy seductive. I have used numerous different textbooks over the years that I have been teaching logic and critical thinking courses. Some of them were very good; others were not. Although this textbook is my attempt to improve on what I’ve encountered, I am indebted to a number of textbooks that have shaped how I teach logic and critical thinking. In particular, Sinnott-Armstrong and Fogelin’s Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic and Copi and Cohen’s Introduction to Logic have influenced how I present the material here (although this may not be obvious). My interest in better motivating the seductiveness of the fallacies is influenced by Daniel Kahneman’s work in psychology (for which he won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002). This textbook is an “open textbook” that is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC BY 4.0). Anyone can take this work and alter it for their own purposes as long as they give appropriate credit to me, noting whether or not you have altered the text. (If you would like to alter the text but have come across this textbook in PDF format, please do not hesitate to email me at vancleam@lcc.edu and I will send you the text in a file format that is easier to manipulate.) At Lansing Community College, my place of employment, we have undertaken an initiative to reduce the cost of textbooks. I see this as an issue of access to education and even an issue of justice. Some studies have shown that without access to the textbook, a student’s performance in the class will suffer. Many students lack access to a textbook simply because they do not buy it in the first place since there are more pressing things to pay for (rent, food, child care, etc.) and because the cost of some textbooks is prohibitive. Moreover, both professors and students are beholden to publishers who profit from selling textbooks (professors, because the content of the course is set by the author of the textbook, and perhaps market forces, rather than by the professor herself; students, because they must buy the newest ii Preface editions of increasingly expensive textbooks). If education is necessary for securing certain basic human rights (as philosophers like Martha Nussbaum have argued), then lack of access to education is itself an issue of justice. Providing high quality, low-cost textbooks is one, small part of making higher education more affordable and thus more equitable and just. This open textbook is a contribution towards that end. Matthew J. Van Cleave January 4, 2016 iii Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 1.1 What is an argument? This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. Both logic and critical thinking centrally involve the analysis and assessment of arguments. “Argument” is a word that has multiple distinct meanings, so it is important to be clear from the start about the sense of the word that is relevant to the study of logic. In one sense of the word, an argument is a heated exchange of differing views as in the following: Sally: Abortion is morally wrong and those who think otherwise are seeking to justify murder! Bob: Abortion is not morally wrong and those who think so are right-wing bigots who are seeking to impose their narrow-minded views on all the rest of us! Sally and Bob are having an argument in this exchange. That is, they are each expressing conflicting views in a heated manner. However, that is not the sense of “argument” with which logic is concerned. Logic concerns a different sense of the word “argument.” An argument, in this sense, is a reason for thinking that a statement, claim or idea is true. For example: Sally: Abortion is morally wrong because it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, and a fetus is an innocent human being. In this example Sally has given an argument against the moral permissibility of abortion. That is, she has given us a reason for thinking that abortion is morally wrong. The conclusion of the argument is the first four words, “abortion is morally wrong.” But whereas in the first example Sally was simply asserting that abortion is wrong (and then trying to put down those who support it), in this example she is offering a reason for why abortion is wrong. We can (and should) be more precise about our definition of an argument. But before we can do that, we need to introduce some further terminology that we will use in our definition. As I’ve already noted, the conclusion of Sally’s argument is that abortion is morally wrong. But the reason for thinking the conclusion is true is what we call the premise. So we have two parts of an argument: the premise and the conclusion. Typically, a conclusion will be supported by two or more premises. Both premises and conclusions are statements. A statement is a type of sentence that can be true or false and 1 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments corresponds to the grammatical category of a “declarative sentence.” example, the sentence, For The Nile is a river in northeastern Africa is a statement. Why? Because it makes sense to inquire whether it is true or false. (In this case, it happens to be true.) But a sentence is still a statement even if it is false. For example, the sentence, The Yangtze is a river in Japan is still a statement; it is just a false statement (the Yangtze River is in China). In contrast, none of the following sentences are statements: Please help yourself to more casserole Don’t tell your mother about the surprise Do you like Vietnamese pho? The reason that none of these sentences are statements is that it doesn’t make sense to ask whether those sentences are true or false (rather, they are requests or commands, and questions, respectively). So, to reiterate: all arguments are composed of premises and conclusions, which are both types of statements. The premises of the argument provide a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true. And arguments typically involve more than one premise. A standard way of capturing the structure of an argument is by numbering the premises and conclusion. For example, recall Sally’s argument against abortion: Abortion is morally wrong because it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, and a fetus is an innocent human being. We could capture the structure of that argument like this: 1. It is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being 2. A fetus is an innocent human being 3. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong 2 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments By convention, the last numbered statement (also denoted by the “therefore”) is the conclusion and the earlier numbered statements are the premises. This is what we call putting an argument into standard argument form. We can now give a more precise definition of an argument. An argument is a set of statements, some of which (the premises) attempt to provide a reason for thinking that some other statement (the conclusion) is true. Although arguments are typically given in order to convince or persuade someone of the conclusion, the argument itself is independent of one’s attempt to use it to convince or persuade. For example, I have just given you this argument not in an attempt to convince you that abortion is morally wrong, but as an illustration of what an argument is. Later on in this chapter and in this book we will learn some techniques of evaluating arguments, but for now the goal is to learn to identify an argument, including its premises and conclusion(s). It is important to be able to identify arguments and understand their structure, whether or not you agree with conclusion of the argument. In the next section I will provide some techniques for being able to identify arguments. Exercise 1: Which of the following sentences are statements and which are not? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. No one understands me but you. Alligators are on average larger than crocodiles. Is an alligator a reptile or a mammal? An alligator is either a reptile or a mammal. Don’t let any reptiles into the house. You may kill any reptile you see in the house. East Africans are not the best distance runners. Obama is not a Democrat. Some humans have wings. Some things with wings cannot fly. Was Obama born in Kenya or Hawaii? Oh no! A grizzly bear! Meet me in St. Louis. We met in St. Louis yesterday. I do not want to meet a grizzly bear in the wild. 3 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 1.2 Identifying arguments The best way to identify whether an argument is present is to ask whether there is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true by basing it on some other statement. If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there isn’t. Another thing that can help in identifying arguments is knowing certain key words or phrases that are premise indicators or conclusion indicators. For example, recall Sally’s abortion argument: Abortion is morally wrong because it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, and a fetus is an innocent human being. The word “because” here is a premise indicator. That is, “because” indicates that what follows is a reason for thinking that abortion is morally wrong. Here is another example: I know that the student plagiarized since I found the exact same sentences on a website and the website was published more than a year before the student wrote the paper. In this example, the word “since” is a premise indicator because what follows it is a statement that is clearly intended to be a reason for thinking that the student plagiarized (i.e., a premise). Notice that in these two cases, the premise indicators “because” and “since” are interchangeable: I could have used “because” in place of “since” or “since” in the place of “because” and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same. In addition to premise indicators, there are also conclusion indicators. Conclusion indicators mark that what follows is the conclusion of an argument. For example, Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, so Bob-the-arsonist didn’t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week. In this example, the word “so” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). Here is another example of a conclusion indicator: A poll administered by Gallup (a respected polling company) showed candidate x to be substantially behind candidate y with only a week left before the vote, therefore candidate y will probably not win the election. 4 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments In this example, the word “therefore” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). As before, in both of these cases the conclusion indicators “so” and “therefore” are interchangeable: I could have used “so” in place of “therefore” or “therefore” in the place of “so” and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same. Table 1 contains a list of some common premise and conclusion indicators: Premise indicators since because for as given that seeing that for the reason that is shown by the fact that Conclusion indicators therefore so hence thus implies that consequently it follows that we may conclude that Although these words and phrases can be used to identify the premises and conclusions of arguments, they are not failsafe methods of doing so. Just because a sentence contains them does not mean that you are dealing with an argument. This can easily be shown by examples like these: I have been running competitively since 1999. I am so happy to have finally finished that class. Although “since” can function as a premise indicator and although “so” can function as a conclusion indicator, neither one is doing so here. This shows that you can’t simply mindlessly use occurrences of these words in sentences to show that there is an argument being made. Rather, we have to rely on our understanding of the English sentence in order to determine whether an argument is being made or not. Thus, the best way to determine whether an argument is present is by asking the question: Is there a statement that someone is trying to establish as true or explain why it is true by basing it on some other statement? If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there isn’t. Notice that if we apply this method to the above examples, we will 5 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments see that there is no argument present because there is no statement that someone is trying to establish as true by basing it on some other statement. For example, the sentence “I have been running competitively since 1999” just contains one statement, not two. But arguments always require at least two separate statements—one premise and one conclusion, so it cannot possibly be an argument. Another way of explaining why these occurrences of “so” and “since” do not indicate that an argument is present is by noting that both premise indicators and conclusion indicators are, grammatically, conjunctions. A grammatical conjunction is a word that connects two separate statements. So, if a word or term is truly being used as a premise or conclusion indicator, it must connect two separate statements. Thus, if “since” were really functioning as a premise indicator in the above example then what followed it would be a statement. But “1999” is not a statement at all. Likewise, in the second example “so” is not being used as a conclusion indicator because it is not conjoining two separate statements. Rather, it is being used to modify the extent of “happy.” In contrast, if I were to say “Tom was sleeping, so he couldn’t have answered the phone,” then “so” is being used as a conclusion indicator. In this case, there are clearly two separate statements (“Tom was sleeping” and “Tom couldn’t have answered the phone”) and one is being used as the basis for thinking that the other is true. If there is any doubt about whether a word is truly a premise/conclusion indicator or not, you can use the substitution test. Simply substitute another word or phrase from the list of premise indicators or conclusion indicators and see if the resulting sentence still makes sense. If it does, then you are probably dealing with an argument. If it doesn’t, then you probably aren’t. For example, we can substitute “it follows that” for “so” in the Bob-the-arsonist example: Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, it follows that Bob-the-arsonist didn’t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week. However, we cannot substitute “because” for “so” in the so-happy-I-finishedthat-class example: I am because happy to have finally finished that class. 6 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments Obviously, in the latter case the substitution of one conclusion indicator for another makes the sentence meaningless, which means that the “so” that occurred originally wasn’t functioning as a conclusion indicator. Exercise 2: Which of the following are arguments? identify the conclusion of the argument. If it is an argument, 1. The woman in the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses and she doesn’t have a long nose. 2. I have been wrangling cattle since before you were old enough to tie your own shoes. 3. Albert is angry with me so he probably won’t be willing to help me wash the dishes. 4. First I washed the dishes and then I dried them. 5. If the road wasn’t icy, the car wouldn’t have slid off the turn. 6. Albert isn’t a fireman and he isn’t a fisherman either. 7. Are you seeing that rhinoceros over there? It is huge! 8. The fact that obesity has become a problem in the U.S. is shown by the fact that obesity rates have risen significantly over the past four decades. 9. Bob showed me a graph with the rising obesity rates and I was very surprised to see how much they’ve risen. 10. Albert isn’t a fireman because Albert is a Greyhound, which is a kind of dog, and dogs can’t be firemen. 11. Charlie and Violet are dogs and since dogs don’t sweat, it is obvious that Charlie and Violet don’t sweat. 12. The reason I forgot to lock the door is that I was distracted by the clown riding a unicycle down our street while singing Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Simple Man.” 13. What Bob told you is not the real reason that he missed his plane to Denver. 14. Samsung stole some of Apple’s patents for their smartphones, so Apple stole some of Samsung’s patents back in retaliation. 15. No one who has ever gotten frostbite while climbing K2 has survived to tell about it, therefore no one ever will. 7 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 1.3 Arguments vs. explanations So far I have defined arguments in terms of premises and conclusions, where the premises are supposed to provide a reason (support, evidence) for accepting the conclusion. Many times the goal of giving an argument is simply to establish that the conclusion is true. For example, when I am trying to convince someone that obesity rates are rising in the U.S. I may cite evidence such as studies from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The studies I cite would function as premises for the conclusion that obesity rates are rising. For example: We know that obesity is on the rise in the U.S. because multiple studies carried out by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades. We could put this simple argument into standard form like this: 1. Multiple studies by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades. 2. Therefore, obesity is on the rise in the U.S. The standard form argument clearly distinguishes the premise from the conclusion and shows how the conclusion is supposed to be supported by the evidence offered in the premise. Again, the goal of this simple argument would be to convince someone that the conclusion is true. However, sometimes we already know that a statement or claim is true and we are trying to establish why it is true rather than that it is true. An argument that attempts to show why its conclusion is true is an explanation. Contrast the previous example with the following: The reason that the rate of obesity is on the rise in the U.S. is that the foods we most often consume over the past four decades have increasingly contained high levels of sugar and low levels of dietary fiber. Since eating foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat, it follows that people who consume foods high in sugar and low in fiber will tend to store more of the calories consumed as fat. 8 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments This passage gives an explanation for why obesity is on the rise in the U.S. Unlike the earlier example, here it is taken for granted that obesity is on the rise in the U.S. That is the claim whose truth we are trying to explain. We can put the obesity explanation into standard form just like any other argument. In order to do this, I will make some paraphrases of the premises and conclusion of the argument (for more on how to do this, see section 1.5 below). 1. Over the past four decades, Americans have increasingly consumed foods high in sugar and low in fiber. 2. Consuming foods high in sugar and low in fat triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat. 3. When people store more calories as fat, they tend to become obese. 4. Therefore, the rate of obesity is on the rise in the U.S. Notice that in this explanation the premises (1-3) attempt to give a reason for why the conclusion is true, rather than a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true. That is, in an explanation we assume that what we are trying to explain (i.e., the conclusion) is true. In this case, the premises are supposed to show why we should expect or predict that the conclusion is true. Explanations often give us an understanding of why the conclusion is true. We can think of explanations as a type of argument, we just have to distinguish two different types of argument: those that attempt to establish that their conclusion is true (arguments), and those that attempt to establish why their conclusion is true (explanations). Exercise 3: Which of the following is an explanation and which is an argument? Identify the main conclusion of each argument or explanation. (Remember if the premise(s) seems to be establishing that the conclusion is true, it is an argument, but if the premise(s) seems to be establishing why the conclusion is true, it is an explanation.) 1. Wanda rode the bus today because her car was in the shop. 2. Since Wanda doesn’t have enough money in her bank account, she has not yet picked up her car from the shop. 3. Either Bob or Henry rode the bus to work today. But it wasn’t Henry because I saw him riding his bike to work. Therefore, it was Bob. 4. It can’t be snowing right now since it only snows when it is 32 degrees or below and right now it is 40 degrees. 9 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 5. The reason some people with schizophrenia hear voices in their head is that the cognitive mechanism that monitors their own self-talk is malfunctioning and they attribute their own self-talk to some external source. 6. Fracking should be allowed because, although it does involve some environmental risk, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and there is much greater harm to the environment due to foreign oil drilling than there is due to fracking. 7. Wanda could not have ridden the bus today because today is a citywide holiday and the bus service is not operating. 8. The Tigers lost their star pitcher due to injury over the weekend, therefore the Tigers will not win their game against the Pirates. 9. No one living in Pompeii could have escaped before the lava from Mt. Vesuvius hit. The reason is simple: the lava was flowing too fast and there was nowhere to go to escape it in time. 10. The reason people’s allergies worsen when they move to Cincinnati is that the pollen count in Cincinnati is higher than almost anywhere else in the surrounding area. 1.4 More complex argument structures So far we have seen that an argument consists of a premise (typically more than one) and a conclusion. However, very often arguments and explanations have a more complex structure than just a few premises that directly support the conclusion. For example, consider the following argument: No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The reason is simple: the lava was flowing too fast and there was nowhere to go to escape it in time. Therefore, this account of the eruption, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness living in Pompeii, was not actually written by an eyewitness. The main conclusion of this argument—the statement that depends on other statements as evidence but doesn’t itself provide any evidence for any other statement—is: A. This account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness. 10 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments However, the argument’s structure is more complex than simply having a couple of premises that provide evidence directly for the conclusion. Rather, some statement provides evidence directly for the main conclusion, but that statement itself is supported by another statement. To determine the structure of an argument, we must determine which statements support which. We can use our premise and conclusion indicators to help with this. For example, the passage contains the phrase, “the reason is…” which is a premise indicator, and it also contains the conclusion indicator, “therefore.” That conclusion indicator helps us to identify the main conclusion, but the more important thing to see is that statement A does not itself provide evidence or support for any of the other statements in the argument, which is the clearest reason why statement A is the main conclusion of the argument. The next question we must answer is: which statement most directly supports A? What most directly supports A is: B. No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. However, there is also a reason offered in support of B. That reason is that: C. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast and there was nowhere for someone living in Pompeii to go in order to escape it in time. So the main conclusion (A) is directly supported by B, and B is supported by C. Since B acts as a premise for the main conclusion but is also itself the conclusion of further premises, we refer to B as an intermediate conclusion. The important thing to recognize here is that one and the same statement can act as both a premise and a conclusion. Statement B is a premise that supports the main conclusion (A), but it is also itself a conclusion that follows from C. Here is how we would put this complex argument into standard form (using numbers this time, as we always do when putting an argument into standard form): 1. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast and there was nowhere for someone living in Pompeii to go in order to escape it in time. 2. Therefore, no one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. (from 1) 11 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 3. Therefore, this account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness. (from 2) Notice that at the end of statement 2 I have written in parentheses “from 1” (and likewise at the end of statement 3 I have written “from 2”). This is a shorthand way of saying: “this statement follows from statement 1.” We will use this convention as a way of keeping track of the structure of the argument. It may also help to think about the structure of an argument spatially, as figure 1 shows: The main argument here (from 2 to 3) contains a subargument, in this case the argument from 1 to 2. A subargument, as the term suggests, is a part of an argument that provides indirect support for the main argument. The main argument is simply the argument whose conclusion is the main conclusion. Another type of structure that arguments can have is when two or more premises provide direct but independent support for the conclusion. Here is an example of an argument with that structure: I know that Wanda rode her bike to work today because when she arrived at work she had her right pant leg rolled up (which cyclists do in order to keep their pants legs from getting caught in the chain). Moreover, our coworker, Bob, who works in accounting, saw her riding towards work at 7:45 am. 12 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments The conclusion of this argument is “Wanda rode her bike to work today” and there are two premises that provide independent support for it: the fact that Wanda had her pant leg cuffed and the fact that Bob saw her riding her bike. Here is the argument in standard form: 1. 2. 3. 4. Wanda arrived at work with her right pant leg rolled up. Cyclists often roll up their right pant leg. Bob saw Wanda riding her bike towards work at 7:45. Therefore, Wanda rode her bike to work today. (from 1-2, 3 independently) Again, notice that next to statement 4 of the argument I have written the premises from which that conclusion follows. In this case, in order to avoid any ambiguity, I have noted that the support for the conclusion comes independently from statements 1 and 2, on the one hand, and from statement 3, on the other hand. It is important to point out that an argument or subargument can be supported by one or more premises. We see this in the present argument since the conclusion (4) is supported jointly by 1 and 2, and singly by 3. As before, we can represent the structure of this argument spatially, as figure 2 shows: There are endless different argument structures that can be generated from these few simple patterns. At this point, it is important to understand that arguments can have these different structures and that some arguments will be longer and more complex than others. Determining the structure of very complex arguments is a skill that takes some time to master. Even so, it may help to remember that any argument structure ultimately traces back to some combination of these. 13 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments Exercise 4: Write the following arguments in standard form and show how the argument is structured using a diagram like the ones I have used in this section. 1. There is nothing wrong with prostitution because there is nothing wrong with consensual sexual and economic interactions between adults. Moreover, since there’s no difference between a man who goes on a blind date with a woman, buys her dinner and then has sex with her and a man who simply pays a woman for sex, that is another reason for why there is nothing wrong with prostitution. 2. Prostitution is wrong because it involves women who have typically been sexually abused as children. We know that most of these women have been abused from multiple surveys done with women who have worked in prostitution and that show a high percentage of self-reported sexual abuse as children. 3. There was someone in this cabin recently because there was warm water in the tea kettle and because there was wood still smoldering in the fireplace. But the person couldn’t have been Tim because Tim has been with me the whole time. Therefore, there must be someone else in these woods. 4. It is possible to be blind and yet run in the Olympic Games since Marla Runyan did it at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. 5. The train was late because it had to take a longer, alternate route since the bridge was out. 6. Israel is not safe if Iran gets nuclear missiles since Iran has threatened multiple times to destroy Israel and if Iran had nuclear missiles it would be able to carry out this threat. Moreover, since Iran has been developing enriched uranium, they have the key component needed for nuclear weapons—every other part of the process of building a nuclear weapon is simple compared to that. Therefore, Israel is not safe. 7. Since all professional hockey players are missing front teeth and Martin is a professional hockey player, it follows that Martin is missing front teeth. And since almost all professional athletes who are missing their front teeth have false teeth, it follows that Martin probably has false teeth. 8. Anyone who eats the crab rangoon at China Food restaurant will probably have stomach troubles afterward. It has happened to me every time, which is why it will probably happen to other people as 14 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments well. Since Bob ate the crab rangoon at China Food restaurant, he will probably have stomach troubles afterward. 9. Albert and Caroline like to go for runs in the afternoon in Hyde Park. Since Albert never runs alone, we know that any time Albert is running, Caroline is running too. But since Albert looks like he has just run (since he is panting hard), it follows that Caroline must have ran too. 10. Just because Jeremy’s prints were on the gun that killed Tim and the gun was registered to Jeremy, it doesn’t follow that Jeremy killed Tim since Jeremy’s prints would certainly be on his own gun and someone else could have stolen Jeremy’s gun and used it to kill Tim. 1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form Although sometimes we can just lift the premises and conclusion verbatim from the argument, we cannot always do this. Paraphrases of premises or conclusions are sometimes needed in order to make the standard form argument as clear as possible. A paraphrase is the use of different words to capture the same idea in a clearer way. There will always be multiple ways of paraphrasing premises and conclusions and this means that there will never be just one way of putting an argument into standard form. In order to paraphrase well, you will have to rely on your understanding of English to come up with what you think is the best way of capturing the essence of the argument. Again, typically there is no single right way to do this, although there are certainly better and worse ways of doing it. For example, consider the following argument: Just because Jeremy’s prints were on the gun that killed Tim and the gun was registered to Jeremy, it doesn’t follow that Jeremy killed Tim since Jeremy’s prints would certainly be on his own gun and someone else could have stolen Jeremy’s gun and used it to kill Tim. What is the conclusion of this argument? (Think about it before reading on.) Here is one way of paraphrasing the conclusion: The fact that Jeremy’s prints were on the gun that killed Tim and the gun was registered to Jeremy doesn’t mean that Jeremy killed Tim. 15 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments This statement seems to capture the essence of the main conclusion in the above argument. The premises of the argument would be: 1. Jeremy’s prints would be expected to be on a gun that was registered to him 2. Someone could have stolen Jeremy’s gun and then used it to kill Tim Notice that while I have paraphrased the first premise, I have left the second premise almost exactly as it appeared in the original paragraph. As I’ve said, paraphrases are needed in order to try to make the standard form argument as clear as possible and this is what I’ve tried to do in capturing premise 1 as well as the conclusion of this argument. So here is the reconstructed argument in standard form: 1. Jeremy’s prints would be expected to be on a gun that was registered to him 2. Someone could have stolen Jeremy’s gun and then used it to kill Tim 3. Therefore, the fact that Jeremy’s prints were on the gun that killed Tim and the gun was registered to Jeremy doesn’t mean that Jeremy killed Tim. (from 1-2) However, as I have just noted, there is more than one way of paraphrasing the premises and conclusion of the argument. To illustrate this, I will give a second way that one could accurately capture this argument in standard form. Here is another way of expressing the conclusion: We do not know that Jeremy killed Tim. That is clearly what the above argument is trying to ultimately establish and it is a much simpler (in some ways) conclusion than my first way of paraphrasing the conclusion. However, it also takes more liberties in interpreting the argument than my original paraphrase. For example, in the original argument there is no occurrence of the word “know.” That is something that I am introducing in my own paraphrase. That is a totally legitimate thing to do, as long as introducing new terminology helps us to clearly express the essence of the premise or conclusion that we’re trying to paraphrase.1 Since my second paraphrase of the How do we know that a paraphrase is accurate? Unfortunately, there is no simple way to answer this question. The only answer is that you must rely on your mastery and understanding of English in order to determine for yourself whether the paraphrase is a good one or not. This 1 16 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments conclusion differs from my first paraphrase, you can expect that my premises will differ also. So how shall I paraphrase the premises that support this conclusion? Here is another way of paraphrasing the premises and putting the argument into standard form: 1. Tim was killed by a gun that was registered to Jeremy and had Jeremy’s prints on it. 2. It is possible that Jeremy’s gun was stolen from him. 3. If Jeremy’s gun was stolen from him, then Jeremy could not have killed Tim. 4. Therefore, we do not know that Jeremy killed Tim. (from 1-3) Notice that this standard form argument has more premises than my first reconstruction of the standard form argument (which consisted of only three statements). I have taken quite a few liberties in interpreting and paraphrasing this argument, but what I have tried to do is to get down to the most essential logic of the original argument. The paraphrases of the premises I have used are quite different from the wording that occurs in the original paragraph. I have introduced phrases such as “it is possible that” as well as conditional statements (if…then statements), such as premise 3. Nonetheless, this reconstruction seems to get at the essence of the logic of the original argument. As long as your paraphrases help you to do that, they are good paraphrases. Being able to reconstruct arguments like this takes many years of practice in order to do it well, and much of the material that we will learn later in the text will help you to better understand how to capture an argument in standard form, but for now it is important to recognize that there is never only one way of correctly capturing the standard form of an argument. And the reason for this is that there are multiple, equally good, ways of paraphrasing the premises and conclusion of an argument. 1.6. Validity So far we have discussed what arguments are and how to determine their structure, including how to reconstruct arguments in standard form. But we have not yet discussed what makes an argument good or bad. The central concept that you will learn in logic is the concept of validity. Validity relates to is one of those kinds of skills that is difficult to teach, apart from just improving one’s mastery of the English language. 17 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments how well the premises support the conclusion, and it is the golden standard that every argument should aim for. A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion cannot possibly be false, assuming that the premises are true. Another way of putting this is as a conditional statement: A valid argument is an argument in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Here is an example of a valid argument: 1. Violet is a dog 2. Therefore, Violet is a mammal (from 1) You might wonder whether it is true that Violet is a dog (maybe she’s a lizard or a buffalo—we have no way of knowing from the information given). But, for the purposes of validity, it doesn’t matter whether premise 1 is actually true or false. All that matters for validity is whether the conclusion follows from the premise. And we can see that the conclusion, Violet is a mammal, does seem to follow from the premise, Violet is a dog. That is, given the truth of the premise, the conclusion has to be true. This argument is clearly valid since if we assume that “Violet is a dog” is true, then, since all dogs are mammals, it follows that “Violet is a mammal” must also be true. As we’ve just seen, whether or not an argument is valid has nothing to do with whether the premises of the argument are actually true or not. We can illustrate this with another example, where the premises are clearly false: 1. Everyone born in France can speak French 2. Barack Obama was born in France 3. Therefore, Barak Obama can speak French (from 1-2) This is a valid argument. Why? Because when we assume the truth of the premises (everyone born in France can speak French, Barack Obama was born in France) the conclusion (Barack Obama can speak French) must be true. Notice that this is so even though none of these statements is actually true. Not everyone born in France can speak French (think about people who were born there but then moved somewhere else where they didn’t speak French and never learned it) and Obama was not born in France, but it is also false that Obama can speak French. So we have a valid argument even though neither the premises nor the conclusion is actually true. That may sound strange, but if you understand the concept of validity, it is not strange at all. Remember: validity describes the relationship between the premises and conclusion, and it means that the premises imply the conclusion, whether or not that conclusion is 18 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments true. In order to better understand the concept of validity, let’s look at an example of an invalid argument: 1. George was President of the United States 2. Therefore, George was elected President of the United States (from 1) This argument is invalid because it is possible for the premise to be true and yet the conclusion false. Here is a counterexample to the argument. Gerald Ford was President of the United States but he was never elected president, since Ford Replaced Richard Nixon when Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal.2 So it doesn’t follow that just because someone is President of the United States that they were elected President of the United States. In other words, it is possible for the premise of the argument to be true and yet the conclusion false. And this means that the argument is invalid. If an argument is invalid it will always be possible to construct a counterexample to show that it is invalid (as I have done with the Gerald Ford scenario). A counterexample is simply a description of a scenario in which the premises of the argument are all true while the conclusion of the argument is false. In order to determine whether an argument is valid or invalid we can use what I’ll call the informal test of validity. To apply the informal test of validity ask yourself whether you can imagine a world in which all the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. If you can imagine such a world, then the argument is invalid. If you cannot imagine such a world, then the argument is valid. Notice: it is possible to imagine a world where the premises are true even if the premises aren’t, as a matter of actual fact, true. This is why it doesn’t matter for validity whether the premises (or conclusion) of the argument are actually true. It will help to better understand the concept of validity by applying the informal test of validity to some sample arguments. 1. Joan jumped out of an airplane without a parachute 2. Therefore, Joan fell to her death (from 1) To apply the informal test of validity we have to ask whether it is possible to imagine a scenario in which the premise is true and yet the conclusion is false (if so, the argument is invalid). So, can we imagine a world in which someone As it happens, Ford wasn’t elected Vice President either since he was confirmed by the Senate, under the twenty fifth amendment, after Spiro Agnew resigned. So Ford wasn’t ever elected by the Electoral College—as either Vice President or President. 2 19 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments jumped out of an airplane without a parachute and yet did not fall to her death? (Think about it carefully before reading on.) As we will see, applying the informal test of validity takes some creativity, but it seems clearly possible that Joan could jump out of an airplane without a parachute and not die—she could be perfectly fine, in fact. All we have to imagine is that the airplane was not operating and in fact was on the ground when Joan jumped out of it. If that were the case, it would be a) true that Joan jumped out of an airplane without a parachute and yet b) false that Joan fell to her death. Thus, since it is possible to imagine a scenario in which the premise is true and yet the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid. Let’s slightly change the argument, this time making it clear that the plane is flying: 1. Joan jumped out of an airplane travelling 300 mph at a height of 10,000 ft without a parachute 2. Joan fell to her death (from 1) Is this argument valid? You might think so since you might think that anyone who did such a thing would surely die. But is it possible to not die in the scenario described by the premise? If you think about it, you’ll realize that there are lots of ways someone could survive. For example, maybe someone else who was wearing a parachute jumped out of the plane after them, caught them and attached the parachute-less person to them, and then pulled the ripcord and they both landed on the ground safe and sound. Or maybe Joan was performing a stunt and landed in a giant net that had been set up for that purpose. Or maybe she was just one of those people who, although they did fall to the ground, happened to survive (it has happened before). All of these scenarios are consistent with the information in the first premise being true and also consistent with the conclusion being false. Thus, again, any of these counterexamples show that this argument is invalid. Notice that it is also possible that the scenario described in the premises ends with Joan falling to her death. But that doesn’t matter because all we want to know is whether it is possible that she doesn’t. And if it is possible, what we have shown is that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise alone. That is, the conclusion doesn’t have to be true, even if we grant that the premise is. And that means that the argument is not valid (i.e., it is invalid). Let’s switch examples and consider a different argument. 20 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 1. A person can be President of the United States only if they were born in the United States. 2. Obama is President of the United States. 3. Kenya is not in the United States. 4. Therefore, Obama was not born in Kenya (from 1-3) In order to apply the informal test of validity, we have to ask whether we can imagine a scenario in which the premises are both true and yet the conclusion is false. So, we have to imagine a scenario in which premises 1, 2, and 3 are true and yet the conclusion (“Obama was not born in Kenya”) is false. Can you imagine such a scenario? You cannot. The reason is that if you are imagining that it is a) true that a person can be President of the United States only if they were born in the United States, b) true that Obama is president and c) true that Kenya is not in the U.S., then it must be true that Obama was not born in Kenya. Thus we know that on the assumption of the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true. And that means the argument is valid. In this example, however, premises 1, 2, and 3 are not only assumed to be true but are actually true. However, as we have already seen, the validity of an argument does not depend on its premises actually being true. Here is another example of a valid argument to illustrate that point. 1. A person can be President of the United States only if they were born in Kenya 2. Obama is President of the United States 3. Therefore, Obama was born in Kenya (from 1-2) Clearly, the first premise of this argument is false. But if we were to imagine a scenario in which it is true and in which premise 2 is also true, then the conclusion (“Obama was born in Kenya”) must be true. And this means that the argument is valid. We cannot imagine a scenario in which the premises of the argument are true and yet the conclusion is false. The important point to recognize here—a point I’ve been trying to reiterate throughout this section—is that the validity of the argument does not depend on whether or not the premises (or conclusion) are actually true. Rather, validity depends only on the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion. The actual truth of the premises is, of course, important to the quality of the argument, since if the premises of the argument are false, then the argument doesn’t provide any reason for accepting the conclusion. In the next section we will address this topic. 21 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments Exercise 5: Determine whether or not the following arguments are valid by using the informal test of validity. If the argument is invalid, provide a counterexample. 1. Katie is a human being. Therefore, Katie is smarter than a chimpanzee. 2. Bob is a fireman. Therefore, Bob has put out fires. 3. Gerald is a mathematics professor. Therefore, Gerald knows how to teach mathematics. 4. Monica is a French teacher. Therefore, Monica knows how to teach French. 5. Bob is taller than Susan. Susan is taller than Frankie. Therefore, Bob is taller than Frankie. 6. Craig loves Linda. Linda loves Monique. Therefore, Craig loves Monique. 7. Orel Hershizer is a Christian. Therefore, Orel Hershizer communicates with God. 8. All Muslims pray to Allah. Muhammad is a Muslim. Therefore, Muhammad prays to Allah. 9. Some protozoa are predators. No protozoa are animals. Therefore, some predators are not animals. 10. Charlie only barks when he hears a burglar outside. Charlie is barking. Therefore, there must be a burglar outside. 1.7 Soundness A good argument is not only valid, but also sound. Soundness is defined in terms of validity, so since we have already defined validity, we can now rely on it to define soundness. A sound argument is a valid argument that has all true premises. That means that the conclusion of a sound argument will always be true. Why? Because if an argument is valid, the premises transmit truth to the conclusion on the assumption of the truth of the premises. But if the premises are actually true, as they are in a sound argument, then since all sound arguments are valid, we know that the conclusion of a sound argument is true. Compare the last two Obama examples from the previous section. While the first argument was sound, the second argument was not sound, although it was valid. The relationship between soundness and validity is easy to specify: all 22 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments sound arguments are valid arguments, but not all valid arguments are sound arguments. Although soundness is what any argument should aim for, we will not be talking much about soundness in this book. The reason for this is that the only difference between a valid argument and a sound argument is that a sound argument has all true premises. But how do we determine whether the premises of an argument are actually true? Well, there are lots of ways to do that, including using Google to look up an answer, studying the relevant subjects in school, consulting experts on the relevant topics, and so on. But none of these activities have anything to do with logic, per se. The relevant disciplines to consult if you want to know whether a particular statement is true is almost never logic! For example, logic has nothing to say regarding whether or not protozoa are animals or whether there are predators that aren’t in the animal kingdom. In order to learn whether those statements are true, we’d have to consult biology, not logic. Since this is a logic textbook, however, it is best to leave the question of what is empirically true or false to the relevant disciplines that study those topics. And that is why the issue of soundness, while crucial for any good argument, is outside the purview of logic. 1.8 Deductive vs. Inductive arguments The concepts of validity and soundness that we have introduced apply only to the class of what are called “deductive arguments”. A deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its premises with absolute certainty, thus leaving no possibility that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. For a deductive argument to fail to do this is for it to fail as a deductive argument. In contrast, an inductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its premises with a high level of probability, which means that although it is possible that the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises, it is unlikely that this is the case. Here is an example of an inductive argument: Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird and since most healthy, normally functioning birds fly, Tweets probably flies. 23 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments Notice that the conclusion, Tweets probably flies, contains the word “probably.” This is a clear indicator that the argument is supposed to be inductive, not deductive. Here is the argument in standard form: 1. Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird 2. Most healthy, normally functioning birds fly 3. Therefore, Tweets probably flies Given the information provided by the premises, the conclusion does seem to be well supported. That is, the premises do give us a strong reason for accepting the conclusion. This is true even though we can imagine a scenario in which the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. For example, suppose that we added the following premise: Tweets is 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph. Were we to add that premise, the conclusion would no longer be supported by the premises, since any bird that is 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph, is not a kind of bird that can fly. That information leads us to believe that Tweets is an ostrich or emu, which are not kinds of birds that can fly. As this example shows, inductive arguments are defeasible arguments since by adding further information or premises to the argument, we can overturn (defeat) the verdict that the conclusion is well-supported by the premises. Inductive arguments whose premises give us a strong, even if defeasible, reason for accepting the conclusion are called, unsurprisingly, strong inductive arguments. In contrast, an inductive argument that does not provide a strong reason for accepting the conclusion are called weak inductive arguments. Whereas strong inductive arguments are defeasible, valid deductive arguments aren’t. Suppose that instead of saying that most birds fly, premise 2 said that all birds fly. 1. Tweets is a healthy, normally function bird. 2. All healthy, normally functioning birds can fly. 3. Therefore, Tweets can fly. This is a valid argument and since it is a valid argument, there are no further premises that we could add that could overturn the argument’s validity. (True, premise 2 is false, but as we’ve seen that is irrelevant to determining whether an 24 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments argument is valid.) Even if we were to add the premise that Tweets is 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph, it doesn’t overturn the validity of the argument. As soon as we use the universal generalization, “all healthy, normally function birds can fly,” then when we assume that premise is true and add that Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird, it has to follow from those premises that Tweets can fly. This is true even if we add that Tweets is 6 ft tall because then what we have to imagine (in applying our informal test of validity) is a world in which all birds, including those that are 6 ft tall and can run 30 mph, can fly. Although inductive arguments are an important class of argument that are commonly used every day in many contexts, logic texts tend not to spend as much time with them since we have no agreed upon standard of evaluating them. In contrast, there is an agreed upon standard of evaluation of deductive arguments. We have already seen what that is; it is the concept of validity. In chapter 2 we will learn some precise, formal methods of evaluating deductive arguments. There are no such agreed upon formal methods of evaluation for inductive arguments. This is an area of ongoing research in philosophy. In chapter 3 we will revisit inductive arguments and consider some ways to evaluate inductive arguments. 1.9 Arguments with missing premises Quite often, an argument will not explicitly state a premise that we can see is needed in order for the argument to be valid. In such a case, we can supply the premise(s) needed in order so make the argument valid. Making missing premises explicit is a central part of reconstructing arguments in standard form. We have already dealt in part with this in the section on paraphrasing, but now that we have introduced the concept of validity, we have a useful tool for knowing when to supply missing premises in our reconstruction of an argument. In some cases, the missing premise will be fairly obvious, as in the following: Gary is a convicted sex-offender, so Gary is not allowed to work with children. The premise and conclusion of this argument are straightforward: 1. Gary is a convicted sex-offender 2. Therefore, Gary is not allowed to work with children (from 1) 25 Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments However, as stated, the argument is invalid. (Before reading on, see if you can provide a counterexample for this argument. That is, come up with an imaginary scenario in which the premise is true and yet the conclusion is false.) Here is just one counterexample (there could be many): Gary is a convicted sex-offender but the country in which he lives does not restrict convicted sex-offenders from working with chil...

Name: James Griffin Basics of Fracking The fracking process is a method of drilling used in petroleum extr
Brand: Study Help Me
SKU: 96636
Price: 10 USD
Availability: LimitedAvailability
Rating: 5 (3 reviews)

Option 1

Low Cost Option

Download this past answer in few clicks

18.89 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

rated 5 stars

Purchased 3 times

Completion Status 100%

James Griffin Basics of Fracking The fracking process is a method of drilling used in petroleum extraction or extraction of any natural gas deep in the earth

Option 1

Low Cost Option

Download this past answer in few clicks

18.89 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

rated 5 stars

View Answer

Sitejabber (5.0)

Merchant Circle (4.8)

Trustpilot (4.6)

Study Help Me (4.9)

Related Questions

Address

Phone Number

Email Address