The Language of Argument

6 6

C 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 s

clerks. Notice that the whole sentence is covered by the assuring phrase “I

trust... there is no one among us who would suggest... .” This implies that

anyone who would make such a suggestion is merely stupid. But the trouble

with Kyl’s argument so far is this: He has pointed out genuine additional

expenses, but they are not, after all, very large. It is important for him to get

some genuinely large sums of money into his argument. This is the point of

his next remark.

c. “... and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the next step would

then be a request for additional office space, and ultimately new buildings.”

Here, at last, we have some genuinely large sums of money in the picture,

but the difficulty is that the entire claim is totally guarded by the phrase “it

is not beyond the realm of possibility.” There are very few things that are

beyond the realm of possibility. Kyl’s problem, then, is this: There are cer-

tain additional expenses that he can point to without qualification, but these

tend to be small. On the other hand, when he points out genuinely large

expenses, he can only do so in a guarded way. So we are still waiting for a

proof that the expense will be large. (Parenthetically, it should be pointed

out that Kyl’s prediction of new buildings actually came true.)

d. “Some will say, ‘All the Members will not use their maximum, so the

cost will not be great.’ And this is true. If the exceptions are sufficient in

number to constitute a valid argument, then there is no broad general need

for this measure.” This looks like a “trick” argument, and for this reason

alone it demands close attention. The phrase “some will say” is a standard

way of beginning a discounting argument. This is, in fact, a discounting ar-

gument, but its form is rather subtle. Kyl cites what some will say, and then

he adds, somewhat surprisingly: “And this is true.” To understand what is

going on here, we must have a good feel for conversational implication. Kyl

imagines someone reasoning in the following way:

All the Members will not use their maximum.

So, the cost will not be great.

Therefore, we should adopt the measure.

Given the same starting point, Kyl tries to derive just the opposite conclusion

along the following lines:

All the Members will not use their maximum.

If the exceptions are not sufficient, then the cost will be too great.

But if the exceptions are sufficient, there is no broad general need for this

measure.

Therefore, whether it is expensive or not, we should reject this measure.

In order to get clear about this argument, we can put it into schematic form:

Kyl’s argument:

If (1) the measure is expensive, then reject it.

97364_ch04_ptg01_059-078.indd 66 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.