The Language of Argument

1 0 3

th e M e t h o d o f R e c o n s t r u c t i o n

each conclusion, listing the premises from which that conclusion follows. (We

did this in our examples.) The argument’s structure can also be shown by a dia-

gram like those discussed above. Either way, we need to make it clear exactly

how the separate parts of the argument are supposed to fit together.

This method is not intended to be mechanical. Each step requires care

and intelligence. As a result, a given argument can be reconstructed in vari-

ous ways with varying degrees of illumination and insight. The goal of this

method is to reveal as much of the structure of an argument as possible and

to learn from it as much as you can. Different reconstructions approach this

goal more or less closely.

The whole process is more complex than our discussion thus far has sug-

gested. This is especially clear in the last three steps of reconstruction, which

must be carried out simultaneously. In deciding whether an argument is ac-

ceptable, we try to find a set of true suppressed premises that, if added to

the stated premises, yields a sound argument for the conclusion. Two prob-

lems typically arise when we make this effort:

1. We find a set of premises strong enough to support the conclusion, but
   at least one of these premises is false.


2. We modify the premises to avoid falsehood, but the conclusion no
   longer follows from them.
   The reconstruction of an argument typically involves shifting back and
   forth between the demand for a valid argument and the demand for true
   premises. Eventually, either we show the argument to be sound or we aban-
   don the effort. In the latter case, we conclude that the argument in question
   has no sound reconstruction. It is still possible that we were at fault in not
   finding a reconstruction that showed the argument to be sound. Perhaps we
   did not show enough ingenuity in searching for a suppressed premise that
   would do the trick. There is, in fact, no purely formal or mechanical way of
   dealing with this problem. A person presenting an argument may reason-
   ably leave out steps, provided that they can easily be filled in by those to
   whom the argument is addressed. So, in analyzing an argument, we should
   be charitable, but our charity has limits. After a reasonable search for those
   suppressed premises that would show the argument to be sound, we should
   not blame ourselves if we fail to find them. Rather, the blame shifts to the
   person who formulated the argument for not doing so clearly.

Reconstruct and diagram the main arguments in:

1. The passages at the end of Chapters 1 and 4.


2. An editorial from your local paper.


3. Your last term paper or a friend’s last term paper.

exercise X

97364_ch05_ptg01_079-110.indd 103 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.