170 ANSWERS, DISCUSSION, AND FURTHER ADVICE
4 Giulio has been ill for over six months now.
Claim 3 acts as the framing premise, showing why Giulio's illness and its length
lead to the given conclusion.
Reasoning from specific cases
1 Smoking should be banned in restaurants.
2 A recent representative survey of Australians found that most of them
believed smoking should be banned in restaurants.
3 In a democratic country such as Australia, the wishes of the majority should
be implemented.
Many arguments from specific cases establish factual claims, but (with the
appropriate framing premise), they can also support an explicit value claim. Claim
2 is written as a summary of the survey subjects' views, representing the hundreds
of individual opinions expressed in that survey.
Reasoning from analogy
1 Cigarette smoking that does not harm other people should not be
banned.
2 Cigarettes and alcohol are similar in that they are addictive, potentially
disease-causing substances.
3 Society condones the drinking of alcohol as long as it does not cause harm to
other people.
4 It is good for societies to treat similar situations in a consistent manner.
The strength of this analogy depends on the similarity of drinking and
smoking in relevant respects. Claim 2 seeks to establish this similarity, while
claim 4 asserts that the similarity should be interpreted within a framework of
consistency (normally we would 'leave out' this claim—see chapter 5 on implied
premises).
Reasoning from terms
1 Cigarette smoke includes smoke inhaled both actively, from one's own
smoking, and passively, from others' cigarettes.
2 Cigarette smoke can enter the lungs actively when a person is smoking.
3 Cigarette smoke can enter the lungs passively when a person is inhaling
others' smoke.
4 Whichever way smoke enters the body, there is no qualitative difference in its
effects on the lung.
This argument establishes a particular definition of 'cigarette smoke' (which
might then be used to simplify another argument). The framework for this argu-
ment is provided by claim 4. Note that it is definitely not a causal argument: it is
simply defining some term or concept.