36 Unit 2 Critical thinking: the basics
Commentary
Overall, this conversation is a quarrel, and
parts of it are no more than exchanges of
opinion, laced with mild insults. But in the
course of the exchange there are examples of
developed argument as well, coming from
both sides.
The clearest example is Anita’s first long
paragraph. This is practically a standard
argument, with three numbered reasons and a
conclusion signalled by ‘so’. Bara responds
with a counter-argument. This gives three
reasons which challenge or contradict Anita’s
claims, then two further reasons (the value of
keeping people in touch, and of saving lives
in emergencies) to support a position which is
the complete opposite of Anita’s. Bara’s
conclusion is expressed by the first sentence
of the paragraph: ‘You just can’t say that.’ In
other words: ‘It is not true that mobile phones
do more harm than good,’ (as Anita has just
asserted). In natural-language arguments,
conclusions may not always be spelled out in
full, as they are in a standard argument.
Expressions such as ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘You’re wrong!’
can be understood as conclusions if it is clear
what they refer to and they are supported
by reasons.
In the three paragraphs that follow we see
Anita and Bara each trying to reinforce their
arguments with further reasons and
objections. Then, as their tempers begin to
fray, they go back to mere quarrelling and
personal remarks.Summary
• We have considered ways of identifying
arguments using argument indicators.
• The difference between a reasoned
argument and a mere quarrel has been
established.
• We have seen examples of arguments in
the context of a dialogue.keep in touch. They save lives in
emergencies. They access
information when you need it. What
more do you want?
Anita (shouting):
I’m sorry, but people do shout into
them. They don’t even know they’re
doing it. And they do use them when
they’re driving, whatever the law
does to stop them. If someone
smashed into you because she was
reading a text message, you would
soon change your tune.
Bara: Hang on, you’re blaming an
inanimate object for what people do
with it. Of course there are always
some idiots who misuse stuff. It’s
like guns, isn’t it? Guns don’t kill, it’s
the people who fire the guns. You’re
making the same mistake.
Anita: I’m not making a mistake. The
machines are to blame. I agree, a
gun can’t kill you until someone fires
it, but you can’t get shot either if
there are no guns to do it with. And
people couldn’t be distracted by
their phones when they’re driving if
there were no mobile phones. And
you wouldn’t still be sending that
text and spoiling our lunch.
Bara: That’s just silly. You’ve lost that one.
Anita: No I haven’t.
Bara: You have. You’re just old-fashioned,
so you can’t see the value of the
new technology.
Anita: I’m not old-fash–
Bara: Be quiet, and let me finish this
message. I’ll be quicker if you just
stop talking.Activity
Is the conversation above just a quarrel, or is
there reasoned argument going on here as
well? If there is, identify some examples.