2.4 Identifying arguments 35
Who wants an argument?
In the last unit we discussed arguments in
dialogue form, as well as single arguments.
Read the following passage – preferably aloud
with a partner, taking a part each – and then
answer the question that follows.SCENE: a table for two in a restaurant
Anita: What are you going to have?
(Sound of a mobile phone)
Bara: Just a minute. I’ve got a message.
Anita: Not another!
Bara: I need to answer it.
Anita: Why don’t you just switch it off?
Restaurants are places for
conversation. They’re so antisocial,
those things.
Bara (texting at the same time):
You wouldn’t say that if you had one.
You’d be on it all the time.
Anita: I wouldn’t have one as a gift.
Bara: Yes, you would. I’ll give you my old
one.
Anita: Keep it. I’m better off without it. In
fact the whole world would be better
off if the wretched things had never
been invented.
Bara: How do you work that out?
Anita: Well for a start, you can’t sit
anywhere quietly any more without
having to listen to one end of
someone else’s shouted
conversation. Secondly, they’re a
health risk because they pour out
microwaves that cook your brain.
Thirdly, they distract drivers and
cause road accidents. So, like I said:
they do more harm than good.
Bara: You just can’t say that. No one
thinks they are a health risk any
more. They don’t distract drivers
unless the drivers are stupid enough
to have them switched on in the car.
Not everybody shouts into their
phones, and not everyone finds
them irritating. They help people tofactors – CCTV footage for instance – that
show Raisa was nowhere near the safe, and
therefore make it less than definite that she
will be treated as a suspect.
[5], too, is an argument. The conclusion is
another prediction (of sorts). You could also
have described it as a statement of probability:
‘You are likely to get a fine.’ The reasoning for
the conclusion is that payment did not reach
the tax office until 12 August, together with
the second sentence which establishes that the
payment was late and that late payment
usually results in a fine. The argument is quite
sound, mainly because the conclusion is a
fairly weak claim. If fines are usual for lateness,
then a fine is likely. If the claim had been that
the person would get a fine, the reasons would
not be adequate.
[6] is not an argument. None of the three
sentences makes sense with ‘therefore’ in front
of it, e.g. ‘From the 15th century European
sailors reached the lands of the east by sailing
west. Those who sailed on and survived
eventually arrived back in Europe. Therefore
when they claimed they had sailed around the
world, few people believed them.’ The
connective that makes most sense is ‘but’, not
‘therefore’. None of the claims is a conclusion
drawn from either or both of the other two;
and it is the same whichever order the claims
are placed in.
[7] is not an argument either – at least not
an explicit one – because, like [6], none of its
actual sentences is a natural conclusion.
However, [7] does point towards a conclusion,
even though it is not stated. In fact there is
really only one conclusion that you could
draw from [7] – that the pump must be
worn – because both the other possibilities are
ruled out. What we can say about [7] is that it
is not complete. It is left to you (the reader or
listener) to draw a conclusion – though in this
case it leaves you in little doubt as to what the
conclusion should be. We could say therefore
that [7] is an implicit argument, or that it has
an implicit conclusion.