The reason answers the ‘why’ question to a statement. Asking for a reason is asking for justification. An argument is a set of propositions of which one is a conclusion and the remainder are premises, intended as support for the conclusion. A proposition is the factual content expressed in an argument. RECOGNISING ARGUMENTSNot all attempts to persuade are attempts to persuade by arguments. Attempts to persuade by means of rhetorical devices are also possible. Rhetoric is any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone that does not attempt to give good reasons but attempts to motivate solely through the power of the words used. It relies on the persuasive power of some words (e.g. instil fear using words without good reason). In analysing attempts to persuade, three tasks have to be performed:IdentifyIt is important to identify the issue being discussed and whether an argument is being presented.ReconstructingThe next step is reconstructing the argument so as to express it clearly. This includes putting arguments in the standard form.EvaluatingThe last step is evaluating the argument.Putting forward an argument is used to either advance an opinion (1) or recommend an action (2). Arguments are attempts to provide reasons that some claim is true. An argument requires more than one claim. If only one claim is used in an attempt to persuade, it is an unsupported claim. The second claim should give support to the first claim. The primary claim which we try to persuade people of is the conclusion. The supporting claims are premises. Indexicals are words of which the meaning changes relative to its context of use or relative to the person to whom it refers.STANDARD FORMThe standard form of an argument is:A is BB is C-------------A is CThere are five steps to reconstruct an argument:Identify the conclusionIdentify the premisesNumber the premises and write them in orderDraw in the inference barWrite out the conclusion,...

Argument reconstruction clarifies what the arguer actually said and to supplement the arguer, as some statements are implicit. The reconstruction of an argument can be presented as a bad argument or as a good argument, depending on the goal (e.g. political debate). A bad argument does not mean that the proposition is false. The principle of charity states that people should also choose the best reconstruction of an argument to discover reasons for accepting or rejecting particular prepositions, advancing the cause of knowledge. TRUTHThe truth-value of a proposition is the truth of the proposition. The two truth-values are true and false. DEDUCTIVE VALIDITYA conclusion is valid if the conclusion would be true, given that the premises are also true. The truth of premises is, in principle, not relevant for the validity of an argument. Validity should be judged by disregarding the truth-values of the premises. PRESCRIPTIVE CLAIMS VS DESCRIPTIVE CLAIMSStatements that state facts are descriptive claims and statements which express desires, norms or moral rules are prescriptive claims. CONDITIONAL PROPOSITIONSConditional propositions use the ‘if-then’ format. A double negative in logic is equal to a positive and it is called contraposition (e.g: if not A, then not B = if B then A). The word ‘or’ can be used in the inclusive sense or in the exclusive sense. In the inclusive sense, it means that ‘A or B’ that either A is true or B is true or they are both true. That statement is only false if both A and B are false. In the exclusive sense ‘A or B’ means that either A is true or B is true but not both. The word ‘either’ is often used here too. The words ‘if only’ create a conditional proportion that sets a necessary condition for it to apply, but it does not implicate that it is true the other way around. For example, ‘A only if B’ implies that A only occurs if B occurs, but B can occur without A occurring. A does not necessarily have to occur if...

A lot of things people write plays no argumentative role. It can serve the function of emphasis, rhetoric or something else. This extraneous material should not be included in the reconstructing of an argument. The word ‘since’ transforms a conditional statement into a statement that asserts both the conditional and the antecedent of that conditional. The first step in reconstructing an argument is to make a list of the argument’s premises and conclusion that leaves out extraneous material.DEFUSING THE RHETORICMetaphors, slang and expressive epithets should be eliminated while reconstructing an argument. Expressive epithets are terms used to refer to some person, group or other entity, without actually using the name.LOGICAL STREAMLININGWhen reconstructing arguments, the logical relationships should be displayed in the simplest, clearest and most familiar ways possible. There are two rules of thumb when logical streamlining: Where appropriate, rewrite sentences as either conditional or disjunctive sentences in simple forms. Rewrite generalisations in simple forms using a clear quantifier.IMPLICIT AND EXPLICITIn arguments, some essential propositions are left implicit. Reconstruction of arguments should make all propositions explicit. The first step is always identifying the conclusion. The next step is identifying the argument’s premises. The third step is making any implicit statements explicit.CONNECTING PREMISESA connecting premise is a premise that has to be made explicit in order to make the argument valid. The connection premise can be not true or not lead to the argument being valid.COVERING GENERALISATIONSAsserting conditionals often happens on the basis of some covering generalisation. The conditional often relies on a generalization.RELEVANCEWhether a certain premise is true or false is not always equally relevant.AMBIGUITY AND VAGUENESSIn reconstructing arguments, ambiguity and vagueness have to be...

Fallacies are arguments which make use of a mistake in reasoning. They do count as arguments, but are faulty arguments. There is an inappropriate connection between premises an conclusion. Formal fallacies are fallacies where there is an inappropriate logical connection. Substantive (informal) fallacies involve reliance or unjustified assumptions or inferences. Substantive fallacies are different from unsound arguments in the sense that the false premise is of general nature and has nothing to do specifically with the subject.There are several formal fallacies:Affirming the consequentThis is affirming the consequent and using this to reason that the antecedent must be true because of this.--------------If A, then BB--------------ADenying the antecedentThis is denying the antecedent and using this to reason that the consequent must be false because of this.-----------------If A, then BNot A-----------------Not BDeriving ought from isA prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly derived from purely descriptive premises. Base rate fallacyThis is neglecting the base rate to make a conclusion.There are several informal fallacies:Majority beliefThis is concluding that the proposition is true on the basis that the majority beliefs that the proposition is true. Common practiceThis is concluding that the proposition is true on the basis that ‘everyone does it’. Gambler’s fallacyThis is concluding that the probability of winning something is increased because of previous events (e.g. roulette ball falls on red twice in a row, so it must be black now).Ad hominemThis is responding to a claim by making an attack upon the person or by rejecting a claim because of dislike for the person making the claim. Ad hominem circumstantialThis is believing an argument is discounted because the person making the argument would allegedly benefit from people believing the argument (e.g. academic want more students because they will have more...