The Language of Argument

9 0

cH A Pt eR 5 ■ D e e p A n a l y s i s

The BLM says its hands are tied. Why? Because these lands were set aside subject

to “valid existing rights,” and Conoco has a lease that gives it the right to drill.

Sure Conoco has a lease—more than one, in fact—but those leases were originally

issued without sufficient environmental study or public input. As a result, none of

them conveyed a valid right to drill. What’s more, in deciding to issue a permit to

drill now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of

drilling in these incomparable lands, but instead determined there would be no

significant environmental harm on the basis of an abbreviated review that didn’t

even look at drilling on the other federal leases. Sounds like Washington double-

speak to me.^3

During the Republican candidates’ debate on October 9, 2007, Chris Matthews

asked Senator John McCain, “... Do you believe that Congress has to authorize

a strategic attack, not an attack on—during hot pursuit, but a strategic attack

on weaponry in Iran—do you need congressional approval as commander and

chief?” Read McCain’s response, then arrange its subarguments in standard

form so as to reveal the structure of his argument. Then diagram the overall

argument.

McCain: We’re dealing, of course, with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it re-

quires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that’s

what you take your oath to do, when you’re inaugurated as president of the United

States. If it’s a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater,

of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval, if this is

an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. So it obviously

depends on the scenario. But I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of

Congress because there may come a time when you need the approval of Congress.

And I believe that this is a possibility that is, maybe, closer to reality than we are

discussing tonight.^4

exercise iv

Some Standards for Evaluating Arguments

After identifying the explicit premises and conclusion and then placing them

all into a unified structure, the next step is to look for missing parts. Argu-

ments in everyday life are rarely completely explicit. They usually depend

on unstated assumptions that are taken for granted by those in the conversa-

tion. We need to bring out those implicit elements in order to complete the

argument and assess it fully.

This step raises a crucial question: When is it legitimate to add premises

that the arguer did not state openly? It would be unfair to criticize an

97364_ch05_ptg01_079-110.indd 90 15/11/13 9:53 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.