Week 5, Day 2 (Ch. 22: The Issue Essay)

Chapter 22: The Issue Essay (starts on p. 461)

This essay gives you a prompt which states someone’s point of view on a topic. You must take a position for or against (agree or disagree) and argue in favor of that opinion. So what is an argument?

Crash Course in Logic

argument – a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion).

Argument: All cats are mammals. All mammals have fur. Therefore all cats have fur.

Not an argument: I like cake. Cake is delicious. Would you give me some cake?

statement – a sentence that is either true or false. Note: not all sentences can be true or false.

Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories. ß Can be true or false

It is raining. ß Can be true or false

Where is Khartoum? ß Cannot be true or false

I suggest you get contact lenses. ß Cannot be true or false

Get out of my way! ß Cannot be true or false

2 Parts to an Argument:

premise – the statements that set forth the reasons or evidence (reasons why)

Premise indicator words: Since, because, for, inasmuch as, as shown by, for the reason that, as indicated by, in that, may be inferred from, as, given that, seeing that, owing to

conclusion – the statement that the evidence is claiming to support or imply (claim or assertion, what you’re trying to prove)

Conclusion indicator words: therefore, hence, so, thus, accordingly, consequently, as a result, wherefore, we may infer, we may conclude, it must be that, for this reason, entails that, it follows that, implies that

A few notes about how premises and conclusions work:

- A single premise indicator may indicate more than one premise and sometimes no indicators are used at all but logically it precedes or comes before the conclusion regardless of what order in which they are presented.

- A conclusion may precede or follow the premises but logically it "follows" or comes from the premises regardless of what order in which they are presented.

- Also, sometimes a statement may be included in an argument which is neither a premise nor a conclusion and these statements should be taken out of the argument when you restructure it formally.

inference – the reasoning process expressed by an argument; term is often used interchangeably with “argument”

Complete the inference:

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is human.

∴ Socrates is mortal                (“∴” stands for "therefore")

proposition – the meaning or information content of a statement; term is used interchangeably with “statement” for our purposes

Types of propositions include: simple and compound (hypothetical, disjunctive, conjunctive)

Simple propositions:

This ball is green.

Apples are round.

Sarah likes pizza.

Compound propositions:

1. Hypothetical:

            If it rains, I will need an umbrella.

            If you don’t set your alarm, you will not be on time to class.

You will pass this class if and only if you pass all assignments and do not have too many absences or other infractions.

2. Disjunctive:

            Keisha speaks either Spanish or French.

            Neither Maria nor Sam like Iron Maiden.

            Either Tom will buy a used car or Devon will buy a new one.

3. Conjunctive:

            I remember MySpace, and you do not.

            Ginger and Craig are both on Pinterest.

            Cats and dogs are not reptiles.

Compare the following:

Propositions:

- Murder is wrong.

- Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.

- A computer will never be able to converse intelligently through speech.

Arguments:

- There must have been fire, because there was smoke.

- Nothing in the universe occurs haphazardly; there is a cause-and-effect pattern to all phenomena, including weather. It follows, therefore, that weather is predictable.

- Teachers are the ideal political organization. They’re in every district. Moreover, they are generally well educated, likely to vote, mindful of public affairs, articulate, and possessed of ample spare time.

Non-Arguments:

- The cake fell because the children ran through the kitchen too loudly.

- One reason for the rise of philosophical inquiry in Athens in the fifth century B.C. was that the Athenians were engaged in trade throughout the Mediterranean. Their travels brought them in contact with people of widely different beliefs and customs, which led them to pose philosophical questions about the bases of their own beliefs and customs.

- Despite her aggressive manner, Natalie is a person with very little self-confidence. That’s why she is so boastful. It also explains why she rarely takes on any challenges in her work.

2 conditions a passage must fulfill to be an argument:

1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. (factual claim)

2. There must be a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons. (inferential claim)

factual claim – a claim that states something is true or factual. ßUsually a premise

inferential claim – a claim that something is proven by a given fact; the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process; a claim that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something. ß Usually a conclusion

2 cautionary points:

1. Premise and conclusion indicator words show up in non-arguments as well as in arguments.

2. It is not always easy to detect the occurrence of an inferential relationship between statements in a passage.

There are two classes of arguments:

deductive argument – an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true; arguments that involve necessary reasoning

inductive argument – an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true; arguments that involve probabilistic reasoning

This means that good deductive arguments have conclusions that are true with certainty, while good inductive arguments have conclusions that are only probably true.

3 Criteria for distinguishing deductive from inductive arguments:

1)     Special indicator words:

a.      Deductive: necessarily, certainly, absolutely, definitely

b.     Inductive: probably, improbable, plausible, implausible, likely, unlikely, reasonable to conclude

c.      “It must be the case that” appears in both.

d.     If indicator words conflict with other criteria, ignore them!

2)     The actual strength of the inferential link between premises & conclusion:

a.      “Strict necessity” is the distinguishing feature of deductive arguments

b.     Inductive arguments lack “strict necessity” but have at least some degree of probability

3)     The form or style of argumentation:

a.      Deductive argument forms:

                                                    i.     Argument based on mathematics – an argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation and measurement

                                                  ii.     Argument from definition – an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion

                                                iii.     Syllogism – generally speaking, an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion

1.     Categorical syllogism – a syllogism in which each statement begins with one of the words “all,” “no,” or “some” – All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P, Some S are not P

2.     Hypothetical syllogism – a syllogism having a conditional (aka hypothetical) statement for one or both of its premises – If P, then Q

3.     Disjunctive syllogism – a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises – P or Q  

b.     Inductive argument forms:

                                                    i.     Prediction – an argument that proceeds from our knowledge of the past to a claim about the future  

                                                  ii.     Argument from analogy – an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or states of affairs

                                                iii.     Generalization – an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group

                                                iv.     Argument from authority – an argument that concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness has said that it is

                                                  v.     Argument based on signs – an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a claim about the thing or situation that the sign symbolizes

                                                vi.     Causal inference – an argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause

Note: ordinary language arguments are incomplete, and so can make identification very difficult.

Deductive Arguments:

valid deductive argument – an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true ß Good deductive argument

validity – a quality of the form of deductive arguments only independent of the actual truth or falsity of each proposition, where assuming the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false would entail strict contradiction. Inductive arguments cannot be valid.

invalid deductive argument – an argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true ß Bad deductive argument

invalidity - a quality of deductive arguments only which refers to the form or structure of that argument; the structure is invalid when the conclusion is not made true necessarily by the truth of the premises. Inductive arguments cannot be invalid.

truth – an attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case.

falsity – an attribute of a proposition that asserts what is not really the case.

Notes:

1. There is no middle ground between valid and invalid. A deductive argument is either one or the other – not ever a little of both.
2. Validity is not based on whether or not the premises or the conclusion is true. Validity is based on the structure of the argument – where each idea is in each proposition. So what validity measures is the logical necessity of the truth of one proposition if other propositions are assumed to be true.
3. Validity only applies to arguments & truth only applies to individual propositions.
4. You can have valid arguments with the following truth values:

            a. True premises         +          True conclusion

            b. False premises        +          False conclusion

            c. False premises         +          True conclusion

but never with

            d. True premises         +          False conclusion ß This always makes an invalid argument.

      5. You can have invalid arguments with all possible combinations of truth values, though:

            a. True premises         +          True conclusion

            b. False premises        +          False conclusion

            c. False premises        +          True conclusion

            d. True premises         +          False conclusion

We can see that it is possible for an argument to have true premises and a true conclusion without the premises being responsible for the truth of the conclusion logically:

            The sun rose this morning.

            Purple people eaters do not exist.

       ∴  The sun will rise tomorrow.          

The thing to keep in mind is the form of the argument.

Invalidity test:

1. Assume the premises are true; is it possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true?
1. If yes, it is possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, then the argument is invalid.
2. If no, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, then the argument is valid.
2. Check the actual truth values: are the premises and conclusion actually true or false?
1. If the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false, then the argument has to be invalid.
2. If the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually true as well, then you need to try another method, because this argument could still be either valid or invalid based on this criteria alone.

***The most important rule in deductive logic is that validity does not apply to all inferences from premise to conclusion. If all arguments were valid, logic would be useless.***

sound argument – a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises.ßBest deductive argument

soundness – a quality applying to deductive arguments only which includes a valid structure and all true premises. Because a sound argument is both valid and possessing exclusively true premises, it necessarily has a true conclusion; that is all sound arguments have true conclusions.

unsound argument – a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both ß Bad deductive argument (the worst is when all the sentences are false and the form is invalid as well)

unsoundness – a quality applying to deductive arguments only which includes either an invalid structure, a single false premise, multiple false premises, or invalidity and falsehood of any or all premises. Unsound arguments may have all true premises, or be valid, but they can never be both.

Test for soundness:

1^st, Good Form test:

1.     Assume truth of the premises

2.     Does the conclusion necessarily follow?

a.      If yes, valid, pass

b.     If no, invalid, fail

2^nd, True Premises test:

1.     Are premises actually true?

a.      If yes for all premises, pass

b.     If no for any one premise, fail

If the argument is both valid and has all premises true, then it is sound.

If the argument fails either the Good Form or the True Premises test, then it is unsound.

Inductive arguments:

strong inductive argument – an inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true ß Good inductive argument

strength – a quality of the form of inductive arguments independent of the actual truth or falsity of each proposition, where assuming the premises to be true would make it highly unlikely that the conclusion could be false

weak inductive argument – an inductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to ß Bad inductive argument

weakness – a quality of the form of inductive arguments independent of the actual truth or falsity of each proposition, where assuming the premises to be true would make it unlikely that the conclusion could be true

Notes:

1. There is middle ground between strong and weak. An inductive argument may be strong in some ways but weaker in others; however, you must judge whether an argument is overall a strong or weak inductive argument.
2. Strength is not based on whether or not the premises or the conclusion is true. Strength is based on the structure of the argument – where each idea is in each proposition. So what strength measures is the logical probability of the truth of one proposition if other propositions are assumed to be true.
3. Strength only applies to arguments & truth only applies to individual propositions.
4. You can have strong arguments with the following truth values:

            a. True premises         +          True conclusion

            b. False premises        +          False conclusion

            c. False premises         +          True conclusion

but never with

            d. True premises         +          False conclusion ß This always makes a weak argument.

      5. You can have weak arguments with all possible combinations of truth values, though:

            a. True premises         +          True conclusion

            b. False premises        +          False conclusion

            c. False premises        +          True conclusion

            d. True premises         +          False conclusion

Example of an inductive argument with true premises and a true conclusion, but a weak form:

You like pizza.

I like pizza.

     .·.  She likes pizza.

Strength test:

1. Assume the premises are true; is it probable for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true?

a.      If yes, it is probable for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, then the argument is weak.

b.     If no, it is improbable for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, then the argument is strong.

2. Check the actual truth values: are the premises and conclusion actually true or false?

a.  If the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false, then the

argument has to be weak.

b.  If the premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually true as well,

then you need to try another method, because this argument could still be either strong or weak based on this criteria alone.

cogent argument – an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises ß Best inductive argument

cogency – a quality applying to inductive arguments only which includes a strong structure and all true premises. Because a cogent argument is both strong and possessing exclusively true premises, it probably has a true conclusion; that is all cogent arguments have probably true conclusions

uncogent argument – an inductive argument that is either weak, has one or more false premises, or both ßBad inductive argument (can be the worst, when all statements in it are false and the form is weak)

uncogency – a quality applying to inductive arguments only which includes either a weak structure, a single false premise, multiple false premises, or weakness and falsehood of any or all premises. Uncogent arguments may have all true premises, or be strong, but they can never be both

Test for cogency:

1^st, Good Form test:

1.     Assume truth of the premises

2.  Does the conclusion probably follow?

a.      If yes, strong

b.     If no, weak

2^nd, True Premises test:

1.  Are premises actually true?

a.      If yes for each, true

b.     If no for any, false

If the argument is both strong and has all premises true, then it is cogent.

If the argument fails either the Good Form or the True Premises test, then it is uncogent.

Differences between deductive and inductive arguments:

1. Additional premises may make an inductive argument stronger, but if a deductive argument is valid, then no additional premises affect the validity of the argument at all, whether or not they are true.
2. If the conclusion of a deductive argument is true independently of the premises, then the argument is technically still valid, but if the conclusion of an inductive argument is true independently of the premises, then the argument is weak.
3. Validity and invalidity are absolute, but strength and weakness admit of degrees.

                         true      false       

                               \   /                       _

                           premise                      |

proposition <                                         |  2 parts of an argument, each of which can be true or

false

      /   \              conclusion                 _|

true      false       /      \            

                        true       false       

2 kinds of arguments, each of which have different properties

                                                 /              \

            certainty à deductive              inductive ß probability

                                    /    \                              /    \

                           valid   invalid           strong    weak

Sound = true premises + valid form ONLY

Unsound = Either (true premises + invalid form) or (false premise(s) + valid form) or (false premise(s) + invalid form)

Cogent = true premises + strong form ONLY

Uncogent = Either (true premises + weak form) or (false premise(s) + strong form) or (false premise(s) + weak form)

START HERE MONDAY

Back to Chapter 22:

See the examples on p. 462; each prompt comes with unique instructions, so always read and follow the instructions.

The Kaplan Method:

1.     Take the issue apart (5 minutes) – consider both sides, restate it in your own words, and use scratch paper.

2.     Select the points you will make (2 minutes) – think of reasons and examples for both sides, and choose to write in favor of the one you can say the most about.

3.     Organize (use a template) (1 minute) – there are several possible templates, these are my two recommended methods:

a.      Template #1

                                i.     Introduction

1.     Restatement of Topic

2.     Statement about other side

3.     Thesis statement: I will argue that X is true because of A and B.

                              ii.     Body

1.     Supporting Paragraph 1

a.      State reason A

b.     Provide examples

c.      State how reason proves your position

2.     Supporting Paragraph 2 - Same with reason B

3.     Other Side Paragraph

a.      State how “on the other hand” people take the opposite side

b.     Provide examples

c.      Explain how the other side is wrong

d.     Reinforce why your side is right

                            iii.     Conclusion

1.     Restate your thesis

2.     Summarize your reasons & examples

3.     Consider the other side

4.     Call to action [write to your senator, vote for me, boycott Shopmart, etc.]

b.     Template #2

                                i.     Introduction - Same

                              ii.     Body – Include a third supporting paragraph before the other side paragraph

                            iii.     Conclusion – Same

          c.   Template #3

                 i. Introduction - Same

                ii. Body - each paragraph BOTH offers the support and the opposite perspective:

                         A. Paragraph 1

                                  1. state reason to support your side

                                  2. example

                                  3. explanation of example and reason

                                  4. counter-example - (opposite side)

                                  5. explain how counterexample still shows you're right

                         B. Paragraph 2 (same)

                         C. Paragraph 3 (same)

               iii. Conclusion - Same

4.     Type your essay (20 minutes) – write correctly, clearly, and concisely. Don’t “pad” your writing with a bunch of “filler” like saying “in my opinion” over and over again.

5.     Proofread your work (2 minutes) – quick corrections you spot easily can include capitalization, paragraph division, double-typed words (like “the the”), typos, and small grammar errors. [I strongly recommend going backwards where you begin with the last sentence, and then the sentence before that, etc.]

Kaplan’s additional tips:

·       You *will* know enough to respond to the task – they choose topics most people already have opinions and knowledge about in order to make them accessible.3

·       Don’t hold yourself to a high standard – just let the ideas flow, and then edit them down to what you think is most supportive. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good!

·       Don’t worry about being “correct” – it is irrelevant whether your argument is the most logical or the most convincing, it just needs to be somewhat logical and somewhat convincing to pass. Both sides can be argued for! Always!

·       Go one step at a time – don’t worry about what comes in step 5 when you’re still in step 3. This is a waste of time and energy.

·       Don’t overcomplicate your prose – keep it simple, sweetie (KISS) and you will sound more convincing than someone who writes in a pompous, pretentious, overwrought, and bombastic style (e.g., the end of this sentence). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Br9JX5PRO0WmpieHhndkhlUEk/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-jl6nIcngQLZw-tdFv6_LvQ 

·       Make sure your conclusion is strong:  Restate your thesis, summarize the examples, and then give a call to action or refer to a common saying – or whatever else the instructions specify is necessary!

NOTE: If you are running low on time, stick to just two supporting examples. Skipping the other side is not smart! It will cost you more points!

How to paraphrase:

1.      Summarize the text using your notes

2.      Use synonyms for key words

3.      Rearrange the structure

a.      Switch passive to active or vice versa

b.      Move clauses around, change their order

c.      Reduce clauses where possible

Example quote: “Other illegal but widely practiced fishing methods like bottom trawling can destroy large sections of coral reef; the practices remain in widespread use despite environmental damage because they catch large quantities of fish.”

Example paraphrase: The author argues that the profitability of catching large amounts of fish incentivizes illegal fishing practices even though they destroy marine environments.

My GRE Essay Grading Rubric:

1. Overall, it makes sense

2. It directly responds to the prompt and stays on topic

3. It is thorough and addresses each part of the instructions

4. The introduction paraphrases the topic

5. Both sides are considered

6. The examples make sense

7. The examples are detailed

8. The examples are explained

9. Strong conclusion

10. Well organized (uses transitions)

11. Mostly correct grammar and spelling

12. Appropriate length (minimum of five paragraphs, five sentences each)