66 Unit 2 Critical thinking: the basics
first encountered in Chapter 2.6 about prize
money in tennis. Here it is again:
[5] Top women tennis players used to
grumble that their prize money was less
substantial than that paid to top male
players in the same competition. They
argued that they were being unequally
treated. But the disparity was entirely
justified and should never have been
abolished. Male players just have more
prowess than women. They need to win
three sets out of five to take the match;
the women only two. They have to play
harder and faster, and expend far more
energy on court than the women. But
most of all, if the best woman in the
tournament played any of the men, there
would be no contest: the man would win.This argument has two steps. (There is a full
analysis of it on pages 47–8 in Chapter 2.6.)
The first step, or sub-argument, is clearly
intended to establish that the men have more
physical prowess than the women. It gives
three reasons for this claim, including the
explicit assumption that any of the men in a
major tournament would beat even the best
woman. Let’s assume firstly that these claims
are true and that they do show that the men
have greater tennis-playing prowess. The next
step – the main argument – is that therefore
the differences in prize money were just, and
should not have been abolished.
It is here, in the main argument, that a
crucial premise has been left out. For it raises
the question: why should this difference in
physical strength and so on determine the
prize money? And that question in turn shows
us what is being smuggled into the argument
without being stated. For the argument only
succeeds if it is justified to say that prize
money should depend on prowess, and so,
in turn, on factors such as power and speed.
Suppose the women were to object that
these factors are irrelevant, and to argue
that their game is actually more entertainingsince that is the reason given for saying
that the internet benefits the public. If it
could be shown that on balance freedom of
information is not in the public interest – i.e.
that it did more harm than good – then the
argument would be considerably weakened.
Option B plainly expresses this assumption;
so, out of the four, it is the correct answer.
None of the other claims is required by the
argument, even if it is suggested or indirectly
implied. A, for example, is something that
the author apparently acknowledges, given
that he says that we should stop worrying. But
A is not essential to the conclusion for which
the author is arguing. It is just a passing
remark. His argument would be no less sound
if there were no reasons to worry: in other
words if A were false. If anything, it would be
stronger. So clearly A is not an assumption
required for, or helpful to, the argument.
C is not implied at all. According to the
author, the internet has brought with it
freedom of information and expression. But
that does not mean that it will continue to do
so, or that other technology will not replace it.
You might have been tempted by D. It may
seem reasonable to assume that freedom of
expression etc. is an entitlement, and so it
may be. But the argument here is that the
freedom of expression afforded by the internet
has benefits that are in the public interest, not
against it; and that therefore it should not be
feared. To draw that conclusion, it is not
necessary to assume that such freedoms are a
right. D claims more than is required for the
argument; it goes too far.Missing pieces
Sometimes a key premise is omitted from an
argument, not because it goes without saying,
but because it suits the author to leave it
out, perhaps because it is a questionable
assumption and the author may prefer not to
draw attention to it by making it explicit. To
see an example in which this might be the
case, we return to the argumentative text you