Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

2.6 Complex arguments 45

Commentary

This is a more complicated argument to unravel

than the last one because the reasons and

conclusions are in a different order, and there are

no argument indicators to mark the conclusions.

The main conclusion is the first sentence:

‘We should not rush headlong.. .’ There are

two direct reasons for reaching this

conclusion. The first is that recycling may be

uneconomical. The second is that it may harm

the environment. Each of these has its own

supporting premises, making each one an

intermediate conclusion leading to the main

conclusion.

The best way to list and label the reasons is

for you to decide. But your analysis must

identify the main conclusion, and recognise

that there are two distinct sub-arguments

leading to the main conclusion. For example:

R1 The cost of recycling often makes the

end product more expensive than

manufacturing the same product from

raw materials.

R2 This extra cost has to be paid by

someone: if it is not the consumer, then

C2 (MC) Drive-on-the-left countries should

change to the right.

Put into words, the fact that in some countries
cars are driven on the left, and the claim that
this can cause accidents, each leads
(separately) to the conclusion that cities
would be safer if all countries did the same.
This, together with the fact that there are
many more drive-on-the-right countries than
left, then leads to a final, or main, conclusion
that the drive-on-the-left countries should
change to the right.
Complex arguments like this, where one
argument links into another, are often called
‘chains of reasoning’. The diagram shows
clearly why this metaphor is used.

IC

C

R1 R2

R3

Study this argument carefully and make sure
you follow the steps, or links, in it. It is
important to understand how the conclusion
of one argument can also be a reason given in
support of a further argument. It is also very
important to be able to distinguish between
the main conclusion in an argument and any
intermediate conclusions reached on the way,
especially since this pattern of reasoning is
very widely used.

Here is another argument that consists of a

chain of reasoning. Analyse it using some of

the techniques discussed in the last

example. Then look at the suggested

analysis that follows.

[2] We should not rush headlong into

large-scale recycling projects without

Activity

carefully weighing the gains and the

losses. Recycling used materials may

in the long run prove uneconomical.

The cost of collecting up and sorting

rubbish, plus the cost of the

recycling process itself, often makes

the end product more expensive

than manufacturing the same

product from raw materials. This

extra cost has to be paid by someone:

if it is not the consumer, then it is the

taxpayer in the form of subsidies.

Nor is recycling always the best

solution environmentally. The high

levels of energy required for

processing waste can cause pollution.

This can also add to global warming.