6 4C H A P T E R 4 ■ T h e A r t o f C l o s e A n a l y s i sb. Kyl now proceeds in a rather flat way, stating that the proposed budget
comes to $82 billion and that it contains many new programs and exten-
sions of former programs. Because these are matters of public record and
nobody is likely to deny them, there is no need for guarding or assuring.
Kyl also claims, without qualification, that these extensions are not within
the budget. This recital of facts does, however, carry an important conver-
sational implication: Since the budget is already out of balance, any further
extensions should be viewed with suspicion.
c. Putting the word “must” in quotation marks, or saying it in a sarcastic
tone of voice, is a common device for denying something. The plain sug-
gestion is that some of these measures are not must activities at all. Kyl here
suggests that some of the items already in the budget are not necessary. He
does this, of course, without defending this suggestion.
d. “Furthermore, if business conditions are as deplorable as the newspa-
pers indicate, the Government’s income will not be as high as anticipated.”
The word “furthermore” suggests that an argument is about to come. How-
ever, the following sentence as a whole is an indicative conditional (with the
word “then” dropped out). As such, the sentence does not produce an argu-
ment, but instead provides only a pattern for an argument.
To get an argument from this pattern, one would have to assert the ante-
cedent of the conditional. The argument would then come to this:
(1) If business conditions are as deplorable as the newspapers indicate,
then the Government’s income will not be as high as anticipated.
(2) Business conditions are as deplorable as the newspapers indicate.
∴(3) The Government’s income will not be as high as anticipated.
The first premise seems perfectly reasonable, so, if Kyl could establish the
second premise, then he would have moved the argument along in an impor-
tant way. Yet he never explicitly states that business conditions are so deplor-
able. All he says is that “the newspapers indicate” this. Moreover, this appeal
to authority (see Chapter 15) does not mention any specific newspaper, so he
does not endorse any specific authority. Still, Kyl never questions what the
newspapers claim, and it would be misleading to bring up these newspaper
reports without questioning them if he thought they were way off the mark.
So Kyl does seem to have in mind something like the arguments (1)–(3).
e. “It is not enough to say we are spending so much now, a little more
will not hurt.” The opening phrase is, of course, used to deny what follows
it. Kyl is plainly rejecting the argument that, since we are spending so much
now, a little more will not hurt. Yet his argument has a peculiar twist, for
who would come right out and make such an argument? If you stop to think
for a minute, it should be clear that nobody would want to put it that way.
An opponent, for example, would use quite different phrasing. He might
say something like this: “Considering the large benefits that will flow from
this measure, it is more than worth the small costs.” What Kyl has done is
attribute a bad argument to his opponents and then reject it in an indignant97364_ch04_ptg01_059-078.indd 64 15/11/13 9:50 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.