60 Unit 2 Critical thinking: the basics
Example [7] is another very interesting case. If
either of the sentences is a reason for the other
it looks like it is the first. You might have
decided that the time lapse between sightings
of the accused is being stated to explain how
she managed to get to the crime scene and
back. Or you might have thought that the
sightings were evidence that she had plenty of
time, making [7] an argument of sorts, with
the second sentence as the conclusion.
But there is a third, more plausible reading,
namely that neither of the sentences explains or
supports the other. They are related by being
part of the same story, but aside from that they
are really independent claims. The first is that
no one reported seeing the accused for an hour;
the second that an hour was time to get to the
crime scene and back. But if the second claim is
true then it is true whether or not anyone saw
the accused between 3 and 4 p.m. (If there is an
explanation it would be about the distance of
the crime scene from the office, or how long it
would take to get there.) And the claim that no
one saw the accused between 3 and 4 p.m. has
nothing to do with the accessibility of the
crime scene. Any attempt to make an argument
out of [7] would result in a non sequitur – where
the supposed conclusion does not follow from
the premises. A non sequitur, as we know, is a
bad argument. So, on the principle of charity,
we have little justification for calling [7] an
argument or an explanation.An implied conclusion
What could be said about [7] is that it is
leading towards some form of accusation. If
some conclusion (or inference) were drawn
from [7], that would make it an argument. For
example, [7] could lead to the inference that
the accused had had the time, or the
opportunity, to commit the crime. However,
this is such an obvious inference to draw that
it does not need to be stated explicitly. We
could think of it as something a prosecuting
counsel might leave unsaid, and let the jury
members make the inference themselves.understood as a reason for the other,
depending on whether you interpret [5] as an
argument or as an explanation. You might
wonder how anyone can decide whether [5] is
an argument or an explanation without
knowing which of the sentences is the reason.
This is a very good question. Without some
context – which we do not have – the clues
are insufficient for us to work out what point
the author is making. It might be that the first
sentence is meant to explain why tax-raising
governments have experienced a slide in the
polls; or the slide in the polls may be meant as
evidence that tax rises are not vote-winners.
Both make reasonably good sense, so even the
principle of charity is little help. The right
answer with regard to [5] is that it is
ambiguous.
The next example, [6], is an interesting one.
It is plainly an argument. The first sentence is
a prediction. The second supplies two reasons
(joined by ‘and’) which can be taken as
support for the prediction. This is a perfectly
acceptable interpretation of [6]. But would it
not be just as accurate to say that the two
reasons in the second sentence are explaining
why the government will not raise taxes close
to an election? If so, then it would seem that
[6] is both an argument and an explanation;
or that the explanation is an argument (and
vice versa).
And that is the right answer. What [6]
illustrates is that one way of supporting a
conclusion is to offer an explanation for it. By
explaining it, successfully, the author also
makes it more believable. The boundary
between argument and explanation is not
always a clean line. If the relationship between
the two concepts were represented in a Venn
diagram (see Chapter 3.5), it would look like
this, with [6] in the intersection:Argument Explanation
[6]