Chapter 3: Reconstruction
When we encounter arguments in real life, they are usually not neatly set out in standard form for us to evaluate. Sometimes they’re embedded in lots of extraneous material, including rhetoric; often not all of the premises are explicitly stated; sometimes the premises or the conclusion are unclear. This happens because often an arguer has other aims as well as the aim of giving a good argument – for example, a blog post or an opinion piece in the newspaper might aim to grab our attention with a catchy headline or opening sentence and then keep us interested and engaged (and perhaps outraged) all the way to the end, and a clear and precise argument in standard form may not do that job.
Because of this, when we want to evaluate a real-life argument, often we first have to reconstruct it. The full process of reconstructing an argument involves more than putting it into standard form. We “clean up” the argument so that it is as clear and straightforward as possible, so that we are ready to assess it.
Reconstruction treads a line between interpreting the arguer in a charitable way, and doing too much work for the arguer. We want to clarify what the arguer is doing, and present their argument in the optimum way. But it still needs to be their argument which is presented, and not some other (better) argument. We look for what the arguer likely intended, but we don’t add new or better reasons for what they have said.
The result of an argument reconstruction is an argument which is ready to be assessed for soundness.
