The Language of Argument

(singke) #1
5 0

C 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 t

believe that.. .” to “I suspect that... ,” and so on.
Such terms guard premises when they are used in place of stronger
alternatives. “Madison probably quit the volleyball team” is weaker than
“She definitely quit” but stronger than “She could have quit.” Thus, if the
context makes one expect a strong claim, such as “I know she quit,” then it
is guarding to say, “She probably quit.” In contrast, if the context is one of
speculating about who might have quit the team, then it is not guarding to
say, “She probably quit.” That is a relatively strong claim when others are just
guessing. Thus, you need to pay careful attention to the context in order to
determine whether a term has the function of guarding. When a term is used
for guarding, you should be able to specify a stronger claim that the guarding
term replaces and why that stronger term would be expected in the context.
Guarding terms and phrases are often legitimate and useful. If you want
to argue that a friend needs fire insurance for her house, you do not need to
claim that her house will burn down. All you need to claim is that there is
a significant chance that her house will burn down. Your argument is better
if you start with this weaker premise, because it is easier to defend and it is
enough to support your conclusion.
If we weaken a claim sufficiently, we can make it completely immune to
criticism. What can be said against a remark of the following kind: “There is
some small chance that perhaps a few politicians are honest on at least some
occasions”? You would have to have a very low opinion of politicians to deny
this statement. On the other hand, if we weaken a premise too much, we pay
a price. The premise no longer gives strong support to the conclusion.
The goal in using guarding terms is to find a middle way: We should
weaken our premises sufficiently to avoid criticism, but not weaken them
so much that they no longer provide strong enough evidence for the con-
clusion. Balancing these factors is one of the most important strategies in
making and criticizing arguments.
Just as it was useful to zero in on assuring terms, so it is also useful to
keep track of guarding terms. One reason is that, like assuring terms, guard-
ing terms are easily corrupted. A common trick is to use guarding terms to
insinuate things that cannot be stated explicitly in a conversation. Consider
the effect of the following remark: “Perhaps the secretary of state has not
been candid with the Congress.” This does not actually say that the secre-
tary of state has been less than candid with the Congress, but, by the rule
of Relevance, clearly suggests it. Furthermore, it suggests it in a way that is
hard to combat.
A more subtle device for corrupting guarding terms is to introduce
a statement in a guarded form and then go on to speak as if it were not
guarded at all.

Perhaps the secretary of state has not been candid with the Congress. Of
course, he has a right to his own views, but this is a democracy where
officials are accountable to Congress. It is time for him to level with us.

97364_ch03_ptg01_041-058.indd 50 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.
Free download pdf