4 4C H A P T E R 3 ■ T h e L a n g u a g e o f A r g u m e n tEven though conditionals by themselves do not mark arguments,
there is a close relationship between conditionals and arguments: Indica-
tive conditionals provide patterns that can be converted into an argument
whenever the antecedent is said to be true. (We also get an argument when
the consequent is said to be false, but we will focus here on the simpler
case of asserting the antecedent.) Thus, we often hear people argue in the
following way:If inflation continues to grow, there will be an economic crisis. But inflation
will certainly continue to grow, so an economic crisis is on the way.
The first sentence is an indicative conditional. It makes no claims one way
or the other about whether inflation will grow or whether an economic crisis
will occur. The next sentence asserts the antecedent of this conditional and
then draws a conclusion signaled by the argument marker “so.” We might
say that when the antecedent of an indicative conditional is found to be true,
the conditional can be cashed in for an argument.
Often the antecedent of a conditional is not asserted explicitly but is con-
versationally implied. When asked which player should be recruited for a
team, the coach might just say, “If Deon is as good as our scouts say he is,
then we ought to go for Deon.” This conditional does not actually assert that
Deon is as good as the scouts report. Nonetheless, it would be irrelevant and
pointless for the coach to utter this conditional alone if he thought that the
scouts were way off the mark. The coach might immediately add that he
disagrees with the scouting reports. But unless the coach cancels the con-
versational implication in some way, it is natural to interpret him as giving
an argument that we ought to pick Deon. In such circumstances, then, an
indicative conditional can conversationally imply an argument, even though
it does not state the argument explicitly.
This makes it easy to see why indicative conditionals are a useful feature
of our language. By providing patterns for arguments, they prepare us to
draw conclusions when the circumstances are right. Much of our knowl-
edge of the world around us is contained in such conditionals. Here is an
example: If your computer does not start, the plug might be loose. This is
a useful piece of practical information, for when your computer does not
start, you can immediately infer that the plug might be loose, so you know
to check it out.
Other words function in similar ways. When your computer fails to start,
a friend might say, “Either the plug is loose or you are in deep trouble.”
Now, if you also assert, “The plug is not loose,” you can conclude that you
are in deep trouble. “Either... or.. .” sentences thus provide patterns for
arguments, just as conditionals do. However, neither if-then sentences nor
either-or sentences by themselves explicitly assert enough to present a com-
plete argument, so “if.. ., then.. .” and “either... or.. .” should not be
labeled as argument markers.97364_ch03_ptg01_041-058.indd 44 11/14/13 1:53 PM
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.