UNDERSTANDING THE LINKS BETWEEN CLAIMS 490^0
Y©
Let us consider another example: I know that Australia has no laws that forbid
any religion, and that, by and large, the people who live in Australia let others
practise their religions peacefully, even if they do not agree with them. These in fact
are the reasons why I had assumed it was obvious that Australia permits freedom
of religious expression'. But we should not assume our readers know this, or that
we are in fact right: we better write in those ideas to make sure the logic is correct.
So, now, I am constructing a different argument:
- Australia permits freedom of religious expression.
- Australia has no laws that forbid any religion.
5. The people who live in Australia let others practise their religions
peacefully even if they do not agree with those religions.
0
+
©©
But once again, I can see there is something missing, because of internal
connections. The conclusion has, as its predicate, 'freedom of religious expression'.
But this term in the argument is not mentioned in either of the two premises, 4
and 5. Hence, I have not yet represented accurately what I am thinking. I should
add a claim which will function as a framing premise, and incidentally is an
example of the value of the super-claim that has the if/then form: 'If a country has
no laws against individual religions and the people of that country do not object to
any religious practices, then freedom of religious expression exists in that country'.
- Australia permits freedom of religious expression.
- Australia has no laws that forbid any religion.
5. The people who live in Australia let others practise their religions
peacefully even if they do not agree with those religions. - If a country has no laws against individual religions and the people of