Clarifying arguments

In Chapter 1, we noted that when putting arguments into standard form, we need to make sure each statement is clear and complete. There are further points to keep in mind about keeping an argument clear and easy to assess.

Phrasing

In ordinary language, people refer to the same thing in a number of different ways in a short space. This prevents them from sounding repetitive. When reconstructing we ensure the alternative phrasing “matches up” so that the same phrase is used throughout the argument. This makes it easier to spot validity and invalidity. Consider the following argument.

Factory farming of pigs should be banned! The conditions the pigs live in are disgusting. No farm animal should be kept in such deplorable conditions. Prohibit the practice!

A first go at putting this argument into standard form might go like this:

P1. The conditions the pigs live in are disgusting.
P2. No farm animal should be kept in such deplorable conditions.
                                                    
C. Factory farming of pigs should be banned.

The conditions are described as “disgusting” in P1, and as “deplorable” in P2. (The conclusion was also presented in two ways, but as the same claim is being made in both the first and last sentence, we only need to keep one of them.) Although slightly different phrasing has been used in different places, it’s clear that this is the same point is being made. We can also note that the context makes it clear that P1 is about factory-farmed pigs, and not pigs in general. We adjust the phrasing to make it “match up” as follows:

P1. The conditions in which factory-farmed pigs are kept is unacceptable.
P2. No farm animal should be allowed to be kept in unacceptable conditions.
                                                    
C. The factory-farming of pigs should not be allowed.

This is valid. It’s now clearer that it’s valid, because the repetition of particular phrases makes it easier to see that the same things are being talked about.

Quantifiers

One of the ways that people frequently leave statements incomplete is by leaving out quantifiers. Quantifiers are words which indicate how many or how much. Quantifiers are often dropped from claims, and this can cause problems when assessing arguments. So, when someone says “Students drink too much”, do they mean all students, most students, or some students? When we reconstruct we work out what the arguer most likely intended, and make the quantifier explicit.

When quantifiers are left out, it sometimes generates confusion. Consider this argument:

Men need to look to their behaviour! Men at the Oxfam charity evening were groping waitresses and making lewd comments. That is totally unacceptable.

Such arguments are sometimes responded to with the cry “Not all men!”. Such a response can be avoided by making the quantifier explicit. We can give a charitable rendition of the argument as follows:

P1. At least some men at the Oxfam charity evening were touching waitresses uninvited and speaking to them inappropriately.
P2. It is not acceptable to touch someone uninvited or to speak to them inappropriately.
P3. Anyone who is engaged in unacceptable behaviour should change their behaviour.
                                                          
C. At least some men should change their behaviour.

This argument is valid – the “at least some men” from P1 is carried through to the conclusion. And it is not susceptible to the “Not all men!” criticism, because it is not making a claim about all men.

Where possible, make your quantifiers explicit.