Argument Reconstruction

Argument Reconstruction is the process of restating a real-life argument so its premises, conclusion, and reasoning are clear

Outline

Argument Reconstruction

Argument Reconstruction is the process of restating a real-life (naturally-occurring) argument so its premises, conclusion, and reasoning are clear, making it easier to understand and evaluate.
The result is a restatement of the argument in premise-conclusion form, with premises and conclusion in a list.

Real-life Arguments

Real-life arguments are often enthymemes, partly stated arguments. A premise, and sometimes the conclusion, is unstated because it can be inferred from the context.
Real-life arguments are often embedded in extended prose, sometimes with premises and conclusion spread out within the text.

Examples

John Oliver

Real-life Argument
- John Oliver is not eligible to be president because he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Reconstruction
1. Only natural-born U.S. citizens are eligible to be president.
2. John Oliver is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
3. Therefore, he’s not eligible to be president
The reconstructed argument is in premise-conclusion form, with the premises on lines 1 and 2, followed by the conclusion.
Premise 1 is unstated, making the real-life argument an enthymeme, a partly stated argument with an implicit premise or conclusion understood from the context.
The same argument can be expressed differently:
- Leaving premise 2 unstated:
  - John Oliver is ineligible to be president because only natural-born U.S. citizens are eligible.
- Leaving the conclusion unstated:
  - If you’re wondering whether John Oliver is eligible to be president, the facts are these: only natural-born U.S. citizens are eligible to president and John Oliver isn’t a natural-born U.S. citizen.
- Replacing because with reason:
  - The reason John Oliver is ineligible to be president is that he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
- Overkill and poor writing style:
  - John Oliver is ineligible to be president because he’s is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and only natural-born U.S. citizens are eligible.

See More ways of saying John Oliver can’t be president

Capital Punishment

Real-life Argument
- James Richardson was the second man in two months to win freedom after it became clear that he was wrongly convicted of a capital crime. Randall Dale Adams, who once came within a week of execution for the murder of a Dallas police officer, was released in March from a Texas prison. Misconduct by a prosecutor and perjured testimony also tainted Mr. Adams’s trial.
- The question is real and urgent: How many James Richardsons or Randall Adamses does it take to change a nation’s attitude about capital punishment?
- Death is the only final and irreversible criminal punishment. As the Richardson and Adams cases vividly show, humans and their governments are fallible and corruptible. Prudent humility dictates that fallible people refrain from inflicting irreversible punishments. (Why Execution is Dead Wrong, NYT)
Reconstruction
1. Fallible governments should refrain from inflicting irreversible punishments
2. Capital punishment is irreversible.
3. Governments are fallible.
4. Therefore, governments should refrain from inflicting capital punishment.
Premise 1 is from the last sentence of the Times’ final paragraph. Premise 2 is from the first sentence. Premise 3 is from the second sentence. The conclusion is unstated, making the argument an enthymeme.

Declaration of Independence

The core of the Declaration of Independence is the following argument:
1. The people have the right to alter or abolish a government if it violates basic human rights such as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The British government of the colonies has violated those rights.
3. Therefore the American people have a right to alter or abolish the British government of the colonies.
The first premise appears in two sentences of the preamble. The second premise is supported by the long list of grievances that follows. Statement #3 is the obvious conclusion to be drawn.
For details, view A Logical Analysis of the Declaration of Independence.

New Employee

Real-life Argument
- The new employee is married – she’s wearing a wedding ring.
Reconstruction
1. The new employee is wearing a wedding ring.
2. Wearing a wedding ring is a reliable sign of being married.
3. Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe the new employee is married.

Missing Links

Real-life Argument
- The theory of evolution is false because of missing links in the fossil record.
Reconstruction
1. If the theory of evolution is true, fossils exist for every transitional form between species.
2. No fossils exist for some transitional forms between species.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.

Cheating

Real-life Argument
- You shouldn’t cheat because you might get caught.
Reconstruction
- If you cheat, you might get caught.
- Getting caught would be bad.
- Therefore, you shouldn’t cheat.

Creationism

Real-life Argument
- ‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism’s leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No: ‘By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes he used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.’ Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in light of your last sentence, what then is ‘scientific’ creationism?
  - Evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould:
Reconstruction, Rough Version
- Scientific Creationism can’t be falsified.
- Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science.
- Therefore, ‘Scientific Creationism’ is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase.
Reconstruction, Improved Version
- Scientific Creationism can’t be falsified.
- Theories that can’t be falsified are not scientific.
- Therefore, Scientific Creationism is not a scientific theory

Reconstruction Exercises

Abortion

Abortion should be legal because abortions are going to be performed whether legal or not.
- View Answer

Evolution

The evolution of one species into another has never been observed and is therefore not an established fact.
- View Answer

Vietnam War

If a limited number of Communists with no national roots were our enemy, it would be reasonable to expect their early defeat and liquidation. This, accordingly, was predicted. ‘The reports of progress’, as Senator Mansfield has said, ‘are strewn like burned-out tanks all along the road which has led us ever more deeply into Vietnam.’ And after each report of progress the American people learned, in effect, nothing has been changed. The progress, if real, was invisible. The roots of the opposition, all too evidently, went far deeper. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
- John Kenneth Galbraith on the Vietnam War
View Answer

Increase in Covid Cases

There are myriad problems with the claim that Covid-19 cases in the US are increasing only because more tests are being conducted.
To break it down to its most basic level, if this was just about testing, the percentage of positive tests would be declining. But it’s not — and that’s particularly the case in a trio of emerging hot spots: Arizona, Florida and Texas.
- As Trump ramps up his coronavirus denialism, GOP allies in hard-hit states are singing a very different tune, Aaron Blake: WaPo
View Answer

Answers to Exercises

Abortion

Abortions are going to be performed whether legal or not.
An activity should be legal if it’s going to be performed whether legal or not.
Therefore, abortion should be legal.

Evolution

The evolution of one species into another has never been observed.
For something to be an established fact it must be observed.
Therefore the evolution of one species into another is not an established fact.

Vietnam War

If the enemy were a limited number of Communists without national roots, they would have been defeated early.
They were not defeated early.
Therefore, the enemy is not a limited number of Communists without national roots.

Increase in Covid Cases

If the increase in Covid cases were due only to more testing, the percentage of positive tests would be declining.
The percentage of positive tests is not declining.
Therefore, the increase in Covid cases is not due only to more testing.

More ways of saying John Oliver can’t be president

John Oliver is ineligible to be president because he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
John Oliver is not a natural-born U.S. citizen; he’s therefore ineligible to be president.
John Oliver is ineligible to be president, not being a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Since he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen, John Oliver is ineligible to be president.
John Oliver is ineligible to be president due to the fact he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
John Oliver’s not being a natural-born U.S. citizen means he’s ineligible to be president.
John Oliver is ineligible to be president inasmuch as he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
The reason John Oliver is ineligible to be president is he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
The fact that John Oliver is not a natural-born U.S. citizen is why he’s ineligible to be president.
The fact that John Oliver is not a natural-born U.S. citizen makes him ineligible to be president.

A Logical Analysis of the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence has three sections:
- Preamble
- Grievances
- Resolution

Image Source: Britannica

From the Preamble
- “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.“
- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
In the first paragraph Jefferson says that the colonies are obligated to publicly explain their argument for declaring independence.
- “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires…“
The Declaration’s argument is then set forth as follows:
1. The people have the right to alter or abolish a government if it violates basic human rights such as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  - This premise appears in two sentences of the preamble:
    - “all men are created equal, that they are endowed…“
    - “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends…“
2. The British government of the colonies has violated those rights.
  - This premise is supported by the long list of “injuries and usurpations” in the Grievance Section.
3. Therefore the American people have a right to alter or abolish the British government of the colonies.
  - This is the obvious conclusion to be drawn.

A leader of the Enlightenment in America, it’s not surprising that Jefferson thought in terms of arguments.