Outline Your Arguments
Before evaluating an argument, it helps if you lay it out so that it flows clearly and logically.
Sometimes, arguments are not articulated clearly. For example, there might be implicit premises that need to be brought to the surface and examined. Or, the argument contains subconclusions which act as premises in support of the main conclusion. Also, you need to work out whet
her each premise logically leads to the conclusion by itself or in conjunction with one or more other premises.
So, you don’t want to go on a tangent attacking a claim you don’t like without first making sure how it relates to the other claims and what role it plays in the argument as a whole.
You can proceed this way:
Disentangle premises and conclusions.
Reorder the premises in a way that sounds meaningful so that you can understand how the premises relate to one another and to the conclusion. This might take some tinkering with positioning the various components of the argument, as more than one configuration could be acceptable. Pick the one you find more meaningful.
Include each premise in a numbered list. Often, the premise is in the context of a complex sentence or paragraph and its subject could be a pronoun that references a person or an object preceding or following it. In this case, rewrite the premise as a complete sentence by getting rid of the pronouns and using the corresponding names of the people or things being referred to instead.
Place the conclusion at the end of the list. To better distinguish visually premises from conclusion, you can:
a) draw a line that separates the list of premises from the conclusion; or
b) write therefore; or
c) add a 3-dotted symbol that stands for therefore before the conclusion.
Here’s a deceitfully simple example: I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes, Discourse on the Method).
From I think to arrive at I am with logical necessity, just like 2 + 2 = 4, (remember, Descartes is looking for an absolutely certain point of departure on which to ground knowledge), there’s a bit of a jump.
We might want to add some additional steps. Here’s what I have in mind:
(1) I think.
(2) Doubting is an act of thinking.
therefore (subconclusion),
(3) Doubting that I think is self-contradictory, so I cannot doubt that I am thinking.
(4) For thinking to occur, there must be an existing subject that thinks.
therefore (main conclusion),
(5) I am, insofar as I am a thinking being.
Now that all the components have been made explicit, ordered in a list, and numbered, we’re better placed to understand how the argument works.
We have premises 1 and 2 leading to subconclusion 3. Subconclusion 3, in its turn, acts as a premise. Finally, subconclusion/premise 3 and premise 4 lead smoothly to the main conclusion 5.
One last thing we might want to clarify is how the premises relate to each other and the conclusion. Does the premise lead to the conclusion on its own or in conjunction with other premises? Which other premises?
This isn’t immediately represented in our list. So, a great way to visualise these pesky logical relations is to use an argument map.
Here’s how.
Let’s Get Mapping!
One-premise arguments
Let’s say, we have this one-premise argument:
(1) Meat contains essential proteins for the overall health of human beings.
Therefore,
(2) human beings should include meat in their diet.
Here’s how you can map this argument:
(1)
↓
(2)
The down arrow shows the flow from premise (1) to conclusion (2).
Arguments with 2 or more premises
What about arguments with 2 or more premises? Here’s a case in point:
(1) Meat contains essential proteins for the overall health of human beings.
(2) If human beings care about their overall health, they should include meat in their diet.
(3) human beings care about their overall health.
Therefore,
(4) human beings should include meat in their diet.
Here, we have 3 premises, which jointly lead to the conclusion. To reflect this in your diagram, simply use a + sign, like this:
(1) + (2) + (3)
↓
(4)
If the premises are independent of each other as each is sufficient to support the conclusion, simply write them side by side, no + sign. Here’s an example:
(1) Legumes are healthy.
(2) Legumes taste delicious.
Therefore,
(3) we should include legumes in our diet.
Either premise in the argument above can independently support the conclusion. Here’s how this is reflected in the diagram:
(1) (2)
↓
(3)
Mapping sub-conclusions: Descartes’ argument
What about Descartes’ argument outlined above?
We saw that, not only does it include combined premises, but it also contains a sub-conclusion, which in turn works together with another premise to establish the main conclusion.
Here’s how you could represent this in a diagram:
(1) + (2)
↓
(3) + (4)
↓
(5)
Let’s Practice Argument Mapping!
Argument mapping is a skill, so if you want to get better, you need to practice (try putting this in diagram form!) .
Here are a few arguments for you to dive into.
The US presidential elections are just around the corner, so I’ve based 2 out of the 3 arguments presented here on the views of some Trump voters to celebrate the occasion :)
For each argument, identify premises and conclusion, include them in a numbered list, and then get mapping!
You’ll find suggested answers at the bottom of the page.
Argument #1
Trump is not controlled by the traditional powers within either party, unlike Kamala Harris, who is supported by neoconservative figures and traditional power brokers.
He is open about his true personality, presenting himself authentically to the American public, which the author prefers over politicians who hide behind rehearsed statements.
He takes counsel from figures like Bobby Kennedy, Jr., who oppose entities such as Big Pharma and Big Food, aiming to address issues around health, food quality, and government accountability.
Trump and his advisors (e.g., Kennedy) will prioritize real science over politically driven “conclusion-based science,” promoting scientific integrity in federal agencies.
In Trump’s previous term, prices of household goods were manageable, jobs were created, and he supported small businesses, suggesting that he would once again improve the economy for ordinary Americans.
Trump’s focus on secure borders will prevent potential security risks and maintain societal order.
He recognizes clear distinctions between men and women, supporting policies that will better protect women and children.
He respects parental sovereignty over children, opposing what government overreach in areas such as gender identity in schools.
He upholds the First Amendment and is committed to protecting free speech against government overreach, which contrasts with the Democratic approach to information control.
Trump is the best candidate to lead America forward.
Adapted from “Why I am Voting for Trump”, by Heather Heying, in Natural Selections on Substack.