4.9 Critical evaluation 183
In the last chapter you worked on mapping
out the structure of two arguments: one with
an accompanying commentary, and one on
your own in the end-of-chapter assignment.
In this chapter you will be looking at the same
two arguments from the point of view of their
strengths and weaknesses, success or failure.
This is critical evaluation.
A: Time to get tough
Read through the whole argument on
page 178 again to remind yourself of its
conclusion and supporting reasons. If
necessary, also look again at the analysis of its
structure on page 181. Once you have it clear
in your mind you can move on to the next
range of questions: Is it a good argument?
Does it work? Does the reasoning succeed in
supporting the conclusion?
It is now that the work you did on analysing
and mapping the argument really starts to pay
off. It has split the argument up into a number
of manageable bits that you can consider one by
one. It has also put the different parts of the
passage in their place, so that you know exactly
what their functions are. So, for example, we can
pass over the first paragraph because it is mostly
introductory, and move straight to where the
argument really begins, in paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2 draws the intermediate
conclusion that the law that convicted
criminals should not profit from their crimes
doesn’t go far enough and should apply to
ex-criminal celebrities (as well as former
fraudsters, bank robbers etc.).
What reasons are given in paragraph 2 for
this conclusion? Are they convincing?Activity
4.9 Critical evaluation
Commentary
The reasons given are that these celebrities
often make big money and that they would
not do so if they had not been criminals in
the past. Provided you accept that both
statements are true, then they do give
support to the suggestion that the law needs
extending, which paves the way for the main
conclusion (in paragraph 5) that such income
should be confiscated. For if it is a fact that
some people do profit from having been
law-breakers – and for no other reason than
being law-breakers – then the principle
referred to in the introduction is (arguably)
being broken.
The big question is whether the reasons are
both acceptable, especially the second. The
first claim is fairly obviously acceptable
because it is a known fact that ex-convicts
who become presenters, film stars and so on
make big money. It could easily be checked
and figures produced to support it if anyone
doubted its truth. But what grounds has the
author got for the second reason, that these
celebrities ‘would never have had such careers
if it weren’t for their crooked past’? Certainly
none that are stated. It is an unsupported claim,
which the author is expecting the reader to
take on trust.Assumption
If you cast your mind back to Chapter 2.9 you
will recall that many, if not all, natural-language
arguments rest on implicit assumptions as well as
on stated reasons. The conclusion that the
author draws in paragraph 2 rests on certain
such assumptions: for example, that ex-criminal
celebrities do not have talents that could have
made them famous or successful if they had not
been criminals. Unless you assume this you
cannot accept the conclusion. But since the